MB 




00001S44DbB ^ 



■ M 11111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J 



opnrtghl 'y 



1TED STATES OF AMERICA. 



<ft> 



The Trinity. 



REV. F. II. BTTKKIS, A.M., 

Mk.mki.i: iif nit South Kansas M. E. Conference. 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION l'.Y 



PROFESSOR JOSEPH EAVEN, 1X1)., LL.D. 



" 



' 



(II [CAGO: 

S. C. GRIGGS AND co.M l' a N K 
I sT I. 



*%* 



Entered according to An of Congress, in the year IW4, bj 

s. c. GRIGGS AND COMPANY, 
in the oilier of the Librarian of Congress, al Washington 






CONTENTS. 



Introduction, 



chapter I 
The Question Stated, 1 

CHAPTER II. 
The Testimony of Christ, - - 14 

CHAPTER III. 
The Testimony of Paul, - - 42 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Testimony of John, ----- 84 

CHAPTER V. 

The Testimony of the Old Testament Script- 

riiKs, ...... 115 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Only Begotten Son, - 148 

CHAPTER VII. 

The Holy Spirit, - 171 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Contusion, - - - 204 



INTRODUCTION. 



1~T is instructive to trace the history of such a 
-*- doctrine as the divinity of Christ, and his rela- 
tion to the Father, and see what different forms it 
has assumed at different times, and how the doc- 
trine, as now received in the Christian church, has 
been built up, little by little, as the result of many 
controversies. Such an historic sketch may serve as 
a fitting introduction to the present volume. 

The doctrine of the true and proper divinity of 
Christ, early in the history of the church, met with 
direct and earnest opposition. In the first century 
there were those who held that Christ was simply a 
man like other men, save that the divine wisdom 
was conferred on him more fully than on other men, 
and on this account he was called the Son of God, 
and was in a sense divine. This doctrine — essentially 
that of the modem Socinians and Unitarians — was 
held bv the Ebiomtes. a sect of Jewish tendencies. 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

which arose near the close of the first century. 
Gibbon, Priestley, Baur, and others, have sought to 
find in this the original type of Christianity ; but 
such is not the fact. 

The Ebionites held that this divine illumination 
of Jesus took place at some time during his earthly 
life, previous to which special illumination he had 
no more of the divine element, no more wisdom, 
than other men. On the other hand, there were 
those, as Theodotrcs and his followers, and the dis- 
ciples of Artemon, in the second century, who, while 
in common with the Ebionites rejecting the proper 
divinity of Jesus, maintained that he was from the 
very first of his life under the peculiar influence of 
the divine spirit, and that his conception was out of 
the usual course of nature. The scientific and skep- 
tical spirit of the age was represented by the school 
of Artemon, who rejected as false or fabulous what- 
ever passed the limits of the understanding. 

Closely allied to these were the views of Paul 
of Samosata, bishop of Antioch in the third cen- 
tury, who seems to have rejected entirely the proper 
divinity of Christ. 



INTKODUCTION. Vll 

But the church doctrine of the divinity of Christ 
found its most general, most permanent, and most 
dangerous opposition, in the doctrines and disciples 
of Arius, in the early part of the fourth century, 
and onward. The true humanity, not less than the 
true divinity of Jesus, was, in fact, denied by the 
Arians. They held that he was a created being, 
neither eternal nor self-existent, the first and chief 
of all created intelligence, existing as such before 
his incarnation, hence not properly a human soul, 
nor yet, in the highest sense, divine ; though far 
exalted above all other created beings, and endowed 
by the Father with certain divine attributes. 

Indeed, as we shall presently see, the views of 
many of the early church fathers, long prior to the 
time of Arius, were decidedly in this direction. 
They regarded the Son as a being not only numeri- 
cally distinct from the Father, before the incarnation, 
but of derived existence, and in an important respect, 
then tore, subordinate. The Arianism of the fourth 
century is, in fact, but the matured result of views 
widely prevalent in the Christian church at a much 
earlier period. 



Till INTRODUCTION. 

Among those who recognized the great central 
truth of the divinity of Christ, there prevailed, almost 
from the first, widely divergent views. On the one 
hand, the Monarchian, or Patri-Passian view, which 
lost sight of the distinction between the Logos and 
the Father, and regarded the names Father and Son 
as only different modes of representing the same 
being, or different relations of the same being to 
our world. On the other hand, the view more gene- 
rally held made prominent the distinction between 
the Father and the Logos, and even went so far as r 
in some instances, to represent the latter as God 
only in a secondary sense. Of the former class — 
Monarchian — were Praxeas, JVoetus, and, with some 
modification, Sabellius, according to whom not the 
whole Deity, as the Monarchians generally held, but 
an efflux or emanation from Deity entered into and 
inspired the humanity of Christ. This emanation is 
the Logos, or Word. In like manner the Holy Spirit 
is an emanation from the unrevealed Deity. Thus, 
in the process of self-revelation, God becomes triune. 
In himself he is unity, and unrevealed. This self- 
expression of Deity is the ground of all existence, 



INTRODUCTION. IX 

and is likened to the emanation of a ray from the 
sun. 

Of the other party of Trinitarians in the early 
church, making prominent the distinction between 
the Father and the Logos, the chief teachers were 
Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. 
Justin Martyr' holds that the Logos was begotten 
in the beginning, before all creation, by the will of 
the Father. The distinction between the two is real, 
mimerical, and not merely nominal; not merely as 
the light differs from the sun. As the words which 
man utters in speech detract nothing from his nature 
in substance, but leave these wholly unimpaired, so 
the generation of the divine "Word leaves the divine 
nature wholly unimpaired. Another favorite figure 
of writers of this school, to illustrate the relation of 
the Son to the Father, was the emanation of a ray 
from the body or disk of the sun, which detracts 
nothing from its source. In common with other 
Christian teachers of the time, Justin Martyr does 
not regard the Logos as originally, and eternally, a 
distinct hypostasis from the Father, but as only the 
divine reason or intelligence in the Father, becoming 



X INTEODUCTION". 

a separate substance or being only when God said, 
" Let there be light." Then the reason, previously 
dwelling as the thought in the divine mind, becomes 
a distinct rational being, the Son of the Father. 
The unity of the two is merely a unity of purpose, 
will, or sentiment. 

The Logos, then, of Justin was neither a self- 
existent, independent, nor eternal being, nor is he 
one with God in any strict and proper sense, but 
numerically distinct. He conies forth from the 
Father, derives his being from him, and that in 
time, or at the creation of the world, and is Deity 
only in a subordinate sense. Similar were the views 
of Theophilus and Tatian. 

Clement of Alexandria admits the separate exist- 
ence or hypostasis of the Logos prior to the creation 
of the worlds, but as numerically distinct from the 
Father, and dependent on him as a derived being. 
He is the copy of the Father — 0e6<; £x Otoh — God 
from God — subordinate to the Father, though supe- 
rior to men and angels. T^rtullian seeks to hold 
both the distinction and the unity of the two. In 
his treatise against Praxeas he says: "Before all 



INTRODUCTION. XI 

things the Deity was alone; yet not alone, for he 
had with him that which he had in himself, namely, 
his reason" — meaning by this the Logos, or Word. 
This divine Word proceeds from the Deity, is de- 
rived from it, and a portion of it, as the stream 
from the fountain, or a ray of light from the sun. 
The unity of the two he compares to that of the 
root and the trunk of a tree, which are two things, 
yet conjoined ; or the stream and the fountain, 
which are two, yet one. Still the Father, as the 
source of being, is other and greater than the Son, 
who proceeds from and is a portion of him. 

The idea of personal distinction and subordina- 
tion was carried yet further, or at least made more 
emphatic, by Origen, who uses the term Son in such 
a way as clearly to imply a derived existence, and 
gives definite shape to the incomprehensible dogma 
of eternal generation. The Son thus eternally be- 
gotten is not, as with Tertullian, the divine reason 
merely, or the word spoken, but a personal subsist- 
ence; not, however, self-subsistent, but of derived 
origin, not partaking the divine essence, which be- 
longe to the Father alone, but another and secondary 



Xll INTRODUCTION. 

nature. Hence he calls him 9s6<; feurepoc; — a Deity 
of second rank. The unity of the two, with Origen, 
as with Justin and Clement, is harmony of will, 
agreement, society, a moral unity, as Paul and Apol 
los are one. The Son is not, however, a creation, 
or a created being, but begotten ; and herein the 
writers now named differ from the Arians — a differ- 
ence sometimes lost sight of by subsequent teachers, 
since we find Dionysius, pupil of Origen, represent- 
ing the Son as the creation and work of the Father, 
as a ship is the work of the builder, and Gregory 
Thaumaturgus also calling him a creation — xri<n<;. 

These views finally culminated in Arianism. In- 
deed nothing is plainer, than that, as already said, 
the distinctive principle of Arianism — that is, the 
essential and original subordination of the Logos to 
the Father — was a doctrine prevalent in the Chris- 
tian church long before the time of Arius; and that 
even in the long and bitter controversy which then 
arose, the absolute Deity of the Logos, in the mod- 
ern Trinitarian sense, as equal with the Father, was 
not held by the church fathers, even of the Athan- 
asian party. With all the zeal of that party against 



INTRODUCTION. XUL 

Arianism, and in defense of the true and proper 
divinity of Christ, it neither held the doctrine of 
numerical unity of being or substance, nor yet the 
full equality of the Son with the Father. An essen- 
tial difference between the two lies in fact upon 
the very face of the creed put forth by the Nicene 
Council. "We believe in one God, the Father Al- 
mighty, maker of all things, seen and unseen ; and 
in one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father," 
etc. The one God then, of the Nicene creed, is the 
Father, and is clearly distinguished from the being 
subsequently named, the one Lord Jesus Christ. 
True, this Son of God is spoken of as a begotten 
and not a created being ; in this respect the error 
of the Arians is fully met ; but still a being dis- 
tinct from the one God first named, derived from 
him, and subordinate to him — God from God, light 
from light — and not an independent and self-existent 
being. The Nicene fathers nowhere affirm, or imply 
the numerical unity of substance, or being, of the 
Son and the Father, nor the full equality of the 
former with the latter. When they call the Son 
t5/jtoo6<T£o? with the Father, they mean simply that 



XIV INTKODUCTION. 

the two have a common nature, that they share the 
Godhead in common ; not that he is self- existent, 
independent, or equal with the Father. This thej 
not only nowhere affirm, but both by implication 
and express statement deny. The Father and Son are 
one as belonging to a common genus — individuals 
under a common class, namely that of Deity. This- 
was the point specially in dispute with the Arians, 
who placed the Son, not in the rank of Deity, but 
in the class of created beings. 

Professor Shedd, in his History of Doctrine, en- 
deavors to show that the Nicene fathers maintained 
that the Son was derived from the Father, merely 
as to his personality, and not as to his substance, or 
essence. But Athanasius distinctly recognizes the 
nbcia — being or essence — of the Son as distinct 
from that of the Father, and derived from it — 

yivvfjfia obaias too izarfins. The one is an obffia yev^rot;, 

the other an obaia dyewyros. The Son, then, is de- 
rived from the Father as to his substance or essence, 
and not merely as to the distinction of personality. 

Athanasius, in one passage at least, uses the term 
dfioouffios as equivalent to 6fxo<t>ur;<;, that which per- 



INTKODUCTION. XV 

tains to individuals of a common nature, or genus. 
In like manner Gregory of Nazianzen regards the 
persons of the Godhead as 6/j.oougioc, in the same 
sense that Adam, Eve, and Seth are oixoobatoi — that 
is, as possessing a common nature. Their unity is 
simply unity of purpose and operation. Basil the 
Great explains the word 6fioob<nov, in the same man- 
ner, as denoting simply unity of rank, or the same 
dignity of nature with the Father, and says the 
word was chosen to express this idea. Gregory of 
Nyssa understands the same thing by it, and illus- 
trates it by reference to Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, 
who, he says, were not three obaiai — three natures 
or essences — but only one, and are called three men 
only by a figure of speech. Chrysostom uses the 
term quite in the JSTieene fashion when he says, by 
way of illustrating the relation of the Son to the 
Father, that Adam and Eve were d/ioo&atot, and 
that children are 6/ioovatot with their parents, — that 
is, partake of the same nature, or belong to a com- 
mon species. Indeed, Athanasius uses almost the 
lame expression to illustrate the same thing. "We 
men, consisting of a body and a soul, are all of one 



XVI INTRODUCTION. 

nature and essence — [xiaq tyuozux; xa\ obaiaq — but we 
are many persons." Are we then all one man? 

Bishop Bull, in his defense of the Nicene creed, 
cites the fathers as maintaining that the Father is 
the fountain, origin and principium of the divinity 
which is in the Son ; that he is ahcoq rod 6tod, 
author of the Son, and ahtov rod ehai, author of his 
being. Here, again, it is not of personality, as Shedd 
thinks, but of essence {obaia) and being (to ehac), 
that these fathers are speaking. It is the divinity 
of the Son that they derive from that of the Father 
as its origin and principium. " They all with one 
breath," says Bull, "taught that the divine nature 
and perfections belong to the Farther and Son, not 
collaterally or coordinately, but subordinately — that 
is to say, that the Son has the same divine nature 
in common with the Father, but communicated by 
the Father." 

The view of Augustine approximates more nearly 
to the Sabellian in making the work of the Son to 
be that really of the whole Trinity. He compares 
the distinction of persons in the Trinity to that of 
memory, intelligence, and will, in man. This makes 



introduction: xvti 

the most of the divine unity, while it reduces to a 
minimum the individuality of the persons. 

It was not until the fifth, or possibly even the 
seventh century, that the doctrine of the Trinity 
received its most definite and positive form, in what 
is now known as the Athanasian creed — improperly 
so called, — whose statements, apparently contradic- 
tory, now asserting, and in the next breath retract- 
ing, and denying, are so worded, with utmost care, 
as to exclude the various erroneous opinions that 
might on either side arise. The key to its apparent 
contradictions — as when it affirms that the Father is 
eternal, the Son eternal, and the Spirit eternal ; yet 
there are not three who are eternal, but only one 
— non tres ceterni, sed unus wternus — is perhaps to 
be found in the fact already stated, that the Kicene 
fathers understood, by the unity of God, merely a 
generic unity, shared by several persons all belong- 
ing to the same rank or class ; so that while each is 
God, there is still but one God ; just as there are 
many who share the human nature, yet the human 
nice is one. 

There are certain metaphysical theories of the 



XV1U •INTRODUCTION. 

Trinity, of a later date, which deserve a passing 
notice. From the first, there have been in the 
Christian church minds of a certain order, devout, 
learned, speculative, inclined to the Platonic methods 
of thought, who have sought by means of that phi- 
losophy to solve the highest problems of the Chris- 
tian faith. The Logos of Plato is the eternal reason, 
dwelling ever in the Supreme Being, and essential 
to the very idea of God. From this, as starting 
point, the Platonic fathers deduced their Trinity in 
the following manner : The divine mind exerted 
upon itself, contemplating its own perfections, gives 
rise to the personal subsistence of the Son ; and as 
the divine mind must eternally have been active, 
and have been eternally thus employed, it must have 
been from eternity giving rise to the personal exist- 
ence of the Son. Among English divines Dr. Ilors- 
ley, Dr. Chauncey, and others, have taken this view. 
Similar is the theory of Melancthon, and from the 
same source — that is, the Platonic philosophy. The 
Logos is God's thought, bearing his image, and re- 
ceiving personality from him. In like manner, 
among the Germans Olshausen makes the Son to 



INTRODUCTION. XIX 

be the self-consciousness of the Father, his knowl- 
edge of himself, so that the Father dwells in the 
Son ; but as these faculties revert again to himself, 
this return gives rise to the third person, or the 
Holy Spirit. Professor Shedd, in his History of Doc- 
trine, takes substantially the same view, in a note 
in which he attempts to illustrate the doctrine from 
the sphere of the human self-consciousness. The 
theory is essentially Platonic in spirit and Hegelian 
in form. 

In the sixteenth century we find the doctrine of 
the simple humanity of Christ brought again into 
prominence in the teaching of Socinus, who holds 
that Christ is by nature a mere man, but that since 
his resurrection all power is committed to him, as 
ruler of the universe. Hence he is properly called 
God, and is a proper object of worship. Indeed, 
Socinus would acknowledge no one to be a Christian 
who does not worship Christ. He is the Saviour of 
men, not merely by his teaching, but as priest and 
intercessor, and especially by his power exerted in 
their behalf as Lord and King. 

The Subelliaii view is wry nearly reproduced in 



XX INTEODUCTION. 

the theory of Swedenborg, who holds that Christ is 
none other than Jehovah, the one only true God, 
assuming a material form and human body in the 
womb of Mary. 

Then, again, comes up, if not indeed the Arian 
view, at least something closely approximating to it, 
in the theory of Doctor Watts, the Christian psalmist, 
who maintains the preexistence of the human soul of 
Christ as the highest of all created souls. Becoming 
incarnate, it empties itself of this superiority, and 
assumes a human body. After the resurrection it 
becomes again what it was originally. 

The Pantheism, so widely prevalent at the present 
day, rejects the true and proper divinity of Christ, 
by making a like divinity to be the common prop- 
erty of the race. The whole world is but the mani- 
festation of God, and the God-man is the human race 
as a whole. The real incarnation is from eternity. 
Thus ScheUing, in his earlier philosophy, and after 
him Strauss, deny that there was in Christ any 
special union of the divine and human elements, more 
than may be realized in others. Strauss affirms this 
union of the whole human race. 



INTRODUCTION. XXI 

To this the view of Schleiermacher seems closely 
to approximate, if it be not, indeed, essentially the 
same. He holds that Christ was the ideal man, the 
type of the race. He had no preexistence, but was 
a new creation. He is, however, God in the human 
form, man being the manifestation of God on the 
earth — his modus existendi. In other men he is 
but imperfectly developed, the God-consciousness be- 
ing in them overpowered by the world-conscious- 
ness; while in Christ it predominated, and controlled 
his whole life. As thus ideally perfect he awakens 
the God-life in others. He is simple man, yet as 
the perfect type of humanity, he is divine ; and of 
this divinity we may all partake by faith. 

According to the view of Dorner, Eorard, and 
other modern theologians of Germany, the divine 
Logos comes into the humanity of Jesus so com- 
pletely, and so fully identities himself with it, as not 
to bave his own separate consciousness and will, 
nor yet the man his, but they are one — one ego, 
one consciousness, one will — all dualism of activity 
and consciousness being excluded. This would seem 
certainly to be at once the more simple and the 



XXU INTRODUCTION. 

more sensible view, as regards the much-disputed 
question of the union of the two natures in Christ. 

But we must not protract this discussion. We 
have sketched in brief outline, as was proposed, the 
chief historical opinions which have arisen, from 
time to time, in the Christian church, respecting the 
divinity of Christ, and his relation to the Father. 
They have been held and put forth, for the most 
part, by men of sincere and devout mind and earnest 
purpose, to whom truth was dear and the Christian 
faith sacred. Mistaken they may have been in their 
veiws — as some of them, indeed, must have been, where 
they so widely differ from each other — but it is not 
for us to sit in judgment on their motives, much less 
to repronounce on them the anathemas of the Atha- 
nasian creed. 

One thing is evident from this survey of opin- 
ions. With all the thought bestowed upon it, and 
all the care of councils and the zeal of sectaries, 
the relation of the divine and human elements in 
the person of Christ has never been so clearly 
defined and established as to preclude the necessity 
of further thought and inquiry on the subject. The 



INTRODUCTION. XX111 

Nicene creed, in its original form, was intended by 
the Council, which, after a long and bitter contro- 
versy, at last adopted it, as a final settlement of the 
whole question. It was to stand to all time as the 
ultimate decision of the Christian church on this 
difficult and much-vexed problem. It was to be a 
finality, — so it was intended, and so it was received 
by the emperor, the bishops, and the churches of 
Christendom. It was little less than a divine in- 
spiration ; it was to be the end of all controversy, — 
fixing the faith of the entire Christian world for 
all future time, unaltered and unalterable. So it 
did, indeed, for a time remain. The Council of Sar- 
dica decree that no second creed shall ever appear! 
The Council of Ephesus go further, and declare that 
whosoever shall compose any other creed shall be de- 
posed from the ministry, if a clergyman, and excom- 
municated, if a layman! It is a somewhat interest- 
ing and instructive fact that, with the exception of 
one or two eastern sects, the entire Christian world, 
to-day, whenever it repeats the ancient formulary of 
its faith, called the Nicene creed, conies fully and 
directly under this ban of deposition and exconiinu- 



XXIV INTRODUCTION. 

nication, — for the Nicene creed, as now universally 
received and repeated, is not that drawn up at the 
Council of Nice, and pronounced a finality and the 
end of all controversy by the Council of Ephesus, 
but the form adopted and sanctioned by the Coun- 
cil of Chalcedon, in 451, in which certain very 
important omissions and alterations of the original 
were made. Nor is the formula of Chalcedon itself 
altogether a finality, as the multiplied and almost 
innumerable creeds of Christendom to-day attest. 

As Dean Stanley well remarks, in respect to 
this matter: ''Every time that the creed is recited, 
with its additions and omissions, it conveys to us 
the wholesome warning that our faith is not, of ne- 
cessity, bound up with the literal text of creeds, or 
with the formal decrees of councils. It existed be- 
fore the creed was drawn up ; it is larger than the 
letter of any creed could circumscribe. The fact 
that the whole Christian world has altered the creed 
of Nicsea, and broken the decree of Ephesus, with- 
out ceasing to be catholic or Christian, is a decisive 
proof that common sense, after all, is the supreme 



INTRODUCTION. XXV 

arbiter and corrective even of cecumenical councils." 
— (History of Eastern Church, p. 246. 

No creed yet enunciated can claim to be a finality 
in this matter. There is still room for doubt, for 
conjecture, for earnest investigation. On a question 
of such moment to the world, it is perfectly idle to 
fall back upon the statements of the Nicene Coun- 
cil, or the carefully-adjusted self-contradictions of the 
so-called Athanasian Creed, and say, Here we rest; 
this is the end of all controversy and all question. 
Every sincere attempt of any candid, thoughtful, ear- 
nest mind to solve the problem, or cast light upon what 
is confessedly mysterious, is, on the contrary, to be 
welcomed as a step in the right direction, whether 
the views put forth accord with our own or not. 

The work which follows is such an attempt, sin- 
cere and earnest, on the part of a devout and thought- 
ful mind, to cast light on a subject of acknowledged 
difficulty. The question discussed is one of moment- 
ous importance — essential, it may be called, to the 
right understanding of the Christian system; and, 
whatever may be thought of the particular views 
which the author maintains — some of which, indeed, 



XXVI INTRODUCTION. 

are not in accordance with the views of the present 
writer,— it is impossible not to give him credit for 
sincerity, ability, fairness, and thoroughness of dis- 
cussion, and a truly Christian spirit. 

The general view of the author may be thus 
summed up: He believes the Bible to teach, — 1. 
That there is but one God, the Father of all. 
2. That Christ is the Son of God, begotten of the 
Virgin by the Holy Ghost ; that in this Son, thus 
begotten, God dwelt — the whole Deity, and not 
merely the second person of the Trinity, as usually 
taught. 3. That the Holy Ghost, sustaining thus 
to Christ the relation of Father, is none other than 
God the Father; in other words, is the spirit of 
God, and no more a distinct person from him than 
the spirit of a man is a distinct person from the 
man himself. L That the Divine Trinity— the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — are not a trinity 
of persons, but the three essentials of one God in 
Christ, — the Father being Deity; the Son, the hu- 
man nature in which Deity becomes incarnate; the 
Holy Ghost, God working in us through his Son, — 
a trinity first coming into existence when God be- 



INTRODUCTION. XXV11 

came incarnate in the person of Jesus. Such are, 
in brief, the main positions of the present work. 
It will be perceived, at once, how nearly they ap- 
proach, in general direction, the views already stated 
as Monarchian, and also those of Swedenborg. If 
the work serve to awaken fresh interest, and prompt 
to new and diligent investigation, it will not be 
without good results. 



CHAPTER I. 



THE QUESTION STATED. 

WE believe that all Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion, and that whatever it teaches we should 
therefore receive as from heaven. If it reveals to us 
the one living and true God, and declares that beside 
him there is no other, we will believe it. If, while it 
teaches that " the Lord our God is one Lord," and that 
he is " God alone," it declares further, that there is in 
this unity a Trinity, or that there are three distinct 
persons, agents, or spirits, and that these three are one 
God ; that they are all equal in power and wisdom, 
and that while each one of these persons is very and 
eternal God, the everlasting Jehovah, there are, never- 
theless, not three Deities, but one Lord ; however 
incomprehensible this may be, and however unreason- 
able and even absurd it may appear, we will not 
dispute it. If this is clearly the language of Inspira- 
tion, we should accept it as a fact, and here let the 

matter rest. 
1 



V THE TRINITY. 

And, indeed, this is the position which Trinitarians 
have generally taken. They admit that they cannot 
understand it, and declare that it is a mystery which 
no one can explain. They believe it to be true, be- 
cause they understand it to be the doctrine of the 
Bible. No one can comprehend how there can be 
three persons, each one of whom is supremely divine, 
and yet only one God ; but then they say that there 
are a great many other things which are equally in- 
comprehensible, and which we nevertheless know to 
be true. If we cannot understand some of the most 
ordinary operations of God in nature, it should not be 
thought strange that we cannot understand the doc- 
trine of the Trinity. And if the Unitarian replies that 
he does not reject the doctrine because it is beyond his 
comprehension, or his power to reason, but because it 
is contrary to it; because the proposition that there 
are three and yet absolutely but one, is self-contradic- 
tory and absurd; the only answer the Trinitarian has 
ever been able to give is, that though it may seem 
to be contradictory, yet it is true, because God, as he 
believes, has declared it. 

But the objector still demands whether we are to 
believe a certain thing to be true in reference to the 
Deity, which, if he had not revealed it, we would from 
the very nature of the mind which he has given us, 



THE QUESTION STATED. 6 

instantly reject as false. Can we, they ask, believe 
that "things which are equal to the same thing are 
equal to each other," and at the same time admit that 
in some cases they are not equal % or that " the whole 
is equal to all its parts," and then declare that in some 
instances this is not true ? 

We could readily believe that the Father is God, 
and that the Son is God, and that the Holy Ghost is 
God, if we were willing to admit that the terms 
Father and Son and Holy Ghost were only different 
names given to the same person. But to assert that 
these are the names of different and distinct persons, 
and that they are all one God, and yet that each one 
is God, is to assert that three persons are one Being, 
and that each one of these persons is that very same 
Being. It would be declaring that a part is equal to 
the whole; that one, which is a part of three, is not 
only equal to it, but that one is three, and three are 
one i and that things which are equal to the same 
tiling are that thing, and yet that they are not the 
same, but different. Again, when we say, as above, 
the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy 
Ghost is God, we predicate of Father and Son and 
Holy Ghost, which are the subjects of these three 
propositions, the same identical Being, and then de- 
clare that the subjects are so many different persons. 



4 THE TRINITY. 

If the predicates are the same God, according to the 
rules by which we reason in all other matters, the 
subjects must be the same person, or else some or all 
of the propositions are false. 

If we assert that there are three persons in the 
Godhead, and that each one of these persons is singly, 
and by himself, perfect Deity, we are simply asserting 
that there are three Deities. We may confess with 
our lips but one, but we have distinctly in our minds, 
at the same time, three, and cannot possibly conceive 
of mch a Trinity of persons, without admitting in 
our hearts a Trinity of Gods. Whatever we may 
say about his unity, our thoughts will contradict our 
words, so long as we believe in a plurality of persons, 
each one of whom we declare to be the Supreme 
Being. And when we bow to worship him, and say 
that he is God alone, we are yet, at the same time, 
thinking of three, and often embarrassed and in doubt 
which one we should address — sometimes appealing 
to God the Father as the one who is able to save us, 
at other times looking to God the Son as our only 
Saviour, and then, again, addressing ourselves exclu- 
sively to the Holy Spirit, and imploring of him par- 
don and salvation. 

That there is this confusion in our minds, and that 
we do sometimes prefer one before the rest, and then, 



THE QUESTION STATED. 5 

feeling that we have been partial, address each of the 
others separately, will not be disputed. And, further, 
parents have experienced the same difficulty in trying 
to explain this doctrine to their children. They tell 
them that " there is but one God the Father," and that 
the Lord Jesus Christ is his Son, and yet that he, too, 
is God. Then the child affirms, immediately, that 
there are two Gods; and when it is told that beside 
these there is still another called God the Holy 
Ghost, it cannot possibly understand you to teach 
anything else than that there are three perfect and 
entire Deities. 

This apparently most difficult question has en- 
gaged the attention of some of our best and most 
learned men in every age of the Christian church. 
Some have admitted the existence of three persons, 
but have denied their equality. Others, believing 
that the titles and the attributes of Deity were, in 
the Bible, ascribed to each one of these, and seeing 
no other way by which they could reconcile the mat- 
ter in their own minds, have, very inconsistently, we 
think, and very much to the injury of the cause of 
Christianity, entirely rejected portions of God's Word 
as not of divine origin; while others, again, have 
accepted the doctrine, as it is now understood, with all 
its apparenl inconsistencies and contradictions. 



6 THE TRINITY. 

Now, we again assert, that if the Bible does teach 
this doctrine, Trinitarians are quite as consistent in 
accepting it as are those who, rather than believe the 
doctrine, would reject the truth of God. If there is 
no other alternative, let God be true, whatever may 
be the consequence. We regard it as settled that he 
is the author of the Bible, and that we should there- 
fore accept whatever it teaches. 

But are we sure that God has ever taught us this 
doctrine? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that 
we have misunderstood his teachings, than that he has 
commanded us to believe a thing which appears so 
unreasonable, and which, if any one else had said that 
it was true, we would feel compelled to reject as false? 
If, as we are told, reason is weak, and we are liable to 
err in our views of the consistency or inconsistency of 
the doctrines of revelation, might we not also be mis- 
taken, sometimes, as to the doctrines which are taught 
in that revelation ? 

We think we shall be able to show that the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, as it is now understood and 
explained, is nowhere taught in the Bible, but that in 
the different views which have been advanced upon 
this subject, are to be found parts of a great truth 
which God has revealed to us in his Holy Word. We 
hope to show, at least, that the view which we take, 



THE QUESTION STATED. 7 

"while it will best reconcile the conflicting opinions 
which prevail now among men is, at the same time, 
the only one which will harmonize with the teachings 
of revelation, or to which it gives anything like a 
uniform testimony. 

We believe the teachings of the Bible upon this 
subject to be: 

1st. That there is but one God, the Father of 
us all. 

2d. That Christ was God's Son. Not "God the 
Son," but as the Bible uniformly teaches, the Son of 
God ; that in his Son Jesus, God dwelt, and through 
him he spake and worked ; that it was not the incar- 
nation of the second person in the Trinity, as we have 
been taught, but that in Christ " dwelt all the fulness 
of the Godhead bodily ; " that " God was in Christ 
reconciling the world unto himself." Again, that he 
was not the Son of God, as any one else ever was. 
lb- was not formed from the dust of the earth, as was 
Adam, nor did lie come into existence as any other 
member of the human family, but was begotten of God. 
Ohrisl had no earthly father, but was conceived by 
the Holy Ghost, ilis mother was a virgin; the only 
virgin that ever became a mother. He was not God's 
Son through the medium of man, but was begotten 
directly and immediately from God himself; and as no 



8 THE TRINITY. 

other one ever was ; he is therefore called his " only 
begotten Son." 

3d. That as the Son was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, the Holy Ghost is his Father ; and as the Deity 
is frequently declared to be the " God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ," therefore, he that sustains to 
Christ the relation of Father and God is the Holy 
Ghost ; and hence he is not a person distinct from 
God the Father, but is that very same person : in other 
words, the Holy Ghost is God's Spirit, and is no more 
a person distinct from him than is the spirit of a man 
a person distinct from the man himself. 

4th. That there is a Divine Trinity, the Father, 
the Son and the Holy Ghost ; that these are not a 
Trinity of persons, but are the three essentials of one 
God in Christ ; that by the Father we are to under- 
stand the Deity ; by the Son, the human nature which 
the Deity assumed when he became incarnate ; and by 
the Holy Ghost, God working in us through his Son; 
that hence in Christ is not only the humanity but also 
the Deity, and in him alone is this Divine Trinity. 
Finally, that this Trinity did not, therefore, exist until 
God became incarnate, and that this is the reason why 
it is never mentioned in the Old Testament Script- 
ures. 

To show that these are the teachings of God's 



THE QUESTION STATED. 9 

Word will be our object in the following pages. If, 
upon a careful examination of the evidence, we find it 
to be the view which is set forth in the Bible, we 
should, of course, accept it as true. If, of all the dif- 
ferent views which have been advanced, this should 
appear the most reasonable, and the one in favor of 
which there is the strongest Scripture testimony, we 
should give it that degree of consideration which the 
evidence and the importance of the subject would seem 
to demand. 

This much we might say in advance, that the Bible 
does not anywhere teach that God had a Son which 
was begotten from eternity, nor that there existed 
from eternity a Trinity of persons, nor even that there 
is now in the Godhead such a Trinity. We have no 
evidence that the word Trinity was in use, or that 
the doctrine of three persons was ever taught by 
i Ihrist or his apostles ; nor was it taught by the church 
as a creed, until the fourth century. And we might 
state farther, that the view which we have just taken, 
while it does not seem to contradict the teachings of 
Christ and his apostles, does most perfectly agree 
with that which is understood to be the apostles' 
teachings, and which is therefore called the apostles" 
creed. •' 1 believe," it declares, "in God the Father 
Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus 



10 THE TRINITY. 

Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord, and that he 
was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin 
Mary," etc. This does not say that he was God the 
Son, or that he was a Son begotten from eternity, but 
that he was begotten of the Holy Ghost in time, and 
was born of a virgin ; and with this agree, as we 
shall see hereafter, the statements of Luke and other 
inspired writers. It sets forth that which we believe 
to be the true doctrine upon this subject, and at the 
same time contradicts that which the church teaches 
at the present day. For while the latter destroys the 
unity of the Godhead by dividing it into persons, 
each one of whom, singly, is God, the former leaves 
it undivided, and presents to us the one God of the 
Bible, who is from everlasting to everlasting, and be- 
side whom there can be no other. 

Those who have accepted the doctrine of three 
persons, and who have never had any difficulty in 
believing it — if any such can be found — we would 
not expect to be as much interested in the subject. 
But there are those who have tried to believe and 
could not ; who, the more they have tried to reconcile 
the matter, the greater the difficulty they have experi- 
enced, and the more unreasonable it has appeared. 
Such persons may find it necessary to do that which 
others would not think of attempting. They may 



THE QUESTION STATED. 11 

feel compelled to go back to the "law and the testi- 
mony," to carefully reconsider the whole matter from 
the beginning, and to accept such conclusions only as 
this testimony will seem to warrant. They will con- 
sider, not that which is the general belief at this time, 
nor that which learned men have declared to be true 
in the past ; but that which they believe, from an 
examination of the whole subject, is clearly the doc- 
trine of revelation. 

It is unfortunately true that many are more anxious 
to learn what the general opinion is than they are to 
ascertain whether that opinion is correct. They are 
more influenced by authority than they are by facts ; 
and their views on nearly all subjects are derived from 
others rather than from an investigation of these sub- 
jects for themselves. We think we are correct in 
saving that not one in a hundred who now hold to 
the doctrine of three persons in one God ever came 
to this conclusion from a careful study of the Script- 
ures. Nor do we believe that those who have written 
in defense of this doc-trine have ever called our atten- 
tion to all, or even the most important part, of the 
evidence which the Bible has furnished bearing upon 
tin.- Bubject. We <1<> nut know of any one who has 
taken tin- many statements of Christ and his apostles, 
together with the testimony which is to be found in 



12 THE TRINITY. 

the Old Testament Scriptures, and drawn from this 
testimony, as a whole, such inferences as would neces- 
sarily seem to follow. But they have, on the contrary, 
generally taken those passages which are regarded as 
most favorable to their view, while they have only 
slightly noticed, and in many cases have entirely over- 
looked, some of the clearest and most positive declara- 
tions which were against them. Believing, as they 
did, that this was the doctrine of the Bible, and that 
its truth must be defended, they have searched the 
Scriptures, not so much for the purpose of determin- 
ing whether this was the truth — because they have 
taken this for granted in advance — but that they 
might find such evidence as would prove it to the 
satisfaction of others. 

Again, we have noticed that, in most cases, they 
have attempted to prove that it was true by proving 
the Divinity of Christ ; as if to show that he was 
supremely Divine was the same as to prove the doc- 
trine of the Trinity. But we expect to show, in the 
proper place, that the Deity which dwelt in Christ is 
not a person distinct from the one which is said to have 
sent him into the world, but was that very same one ; 
and that the argument drawn from this fact has in it, 
therefore, no validity whatever; and that when this 
argument is taken away there is nothing left which 



THE QUESTION STATED. 13 

would lead us to a belief in the doctrine, however 
reasonable it might otherwise appear. 

In this way we hope to vindicate the truth of God, 
and show that what he requires us to believe is not so 
unreasonable that many have been compelled to reject 
it as untrue, and so incomprehensible that all admit 
it can neither be understood nor explained. And 
whether we have made a careful survey of the whole 
field, or have taken an imperfect view of only a part, 
and whether our conclusions are such as the evidence, 
critically weighed, will warrant, we will leave the 
intelligent reader to judge. Believing that this is the 
truth, and believing that the truth will finally prevail, 
we are willing that what we here advance shall be 
submitted to this test — "If this council or this work 
be of men, it will come to naught ; but if it be of God 
ye cannot overthrow it." 



CHAPTER II. 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 

" "TTTE speak that we do know, and testify that we 
V V have seen." ' " These things saith the Amen, 
the faithful and true witness." 3 " To this end was I 
born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I 
should bear witness unto the truth." 3 If Christ came 
into the world, then, to bear testimony to the truth, 
we should be careful to ascertain what that testimony 
is. As he is the way, the truth, and the life, we should 
ever look to him as our guide, and receive with grate- 
ful hearts whatever he may see proper to reveal. 

We think we can show from his testimony, that 
when he speaks of the Father, he means the Deity 
entire ; and that by the Son, he means the human 
nature which the Deity assumed, and with which it is 
united, so that they are one, as he himself declares. 
As a proof of this we notice, first, that he calls God 
his Father, and that he also declares him to be our 

> John 3 : 11. a Rev. 3 : 14. 3 John 18 : 37. 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 15 

Father. He reveals to us the glorious truth that the 
Deity is the great Father of us all, and that we are to 
address him as our Father in heaven. He does not, 
anywhere, intimate that there are three persons in the 
Godhead, and that his Father is one of these persons, 
aud that he is another ; nor does he ever state that he 
is " God the Son ;" but on the contrary, he expressly 
declares that he is the Son of God. He speaks of his 
Father as the great fountain of life and light, and, in 
addressing him, asserts that he is " the only true God." 
Again, he tells us that the one who is his Father is- 
also his God. " I ascend," said he, " to my Father, 
and your Father ; and to my God, and your God." l 
" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? " a 
•■ My God . . . the name of my God . . . and the 
name of the city of my God." 3 If the Son, who here 
uses this language, is himself God, it is remarkably 
strange how he could have a Father. It is certainly a 
mystery the most incomprehensible, and, if true, would 
seem to contradict all our views of the Deity. But 
how much more unaccountable, when we affirm that 
then: is one who sustains to him, not only the relation 
<>i' Father, but also the relation of God ; that God the 
Father, the first person of the Trinity, is the Father of 
God the Son, the second person in the Trinity, and that 

» John 20 : 17. • Mntt. 27 : 40. ' Kev. 8 : 12. 



16 THE TRINITY. 

the first person is also the God of the second person ; 
so that one Supreme Being is the God and Father of 
another Supreme Being, and yet that there is but one 
Lord. But strange as it is, and unaccountable as it 
may appear, if the doctrine of the Trinitarian is correct, 
we must either admit that it is true, or else reject the 
testimony of Christ. He not only declares that the 
Father is God, but he also most positively asserts that 
the Father is his God. 

Trinitarians themselves admit that when the Son 
calls the Father his God, he is speaking of his human 
nature ; and yet they contend that when he speaks of 
the Father as his Father, he does not mean simply the 
human son which was born of the Virgin Mary, but 
that he is talking about the Son who was born from 
eternity, and who, though begotten and born, is yet 
himself the Supreme God. But if they admit that he 
is speaking of his humanity when he calls the Deity 
his God, the} 7 must also admit that he is here speaking 
of his human nature when he calls the Deity his 
Father. For when he tells Mary that he is about to 
ascend to his Father and her Father, he declares in 
the same sentence, and with the same breath, that the 
one to whom he ascends is also his God and her God. 
"We must either admit that by the Father he means the 
Deity entire, and by the Son the man in whom that 



THE TESTEMOXT OF CHKIST. 1 7 

Deity dwells, or else be willing to concede that of two 
Supreme Beings, the one may be, and is, the God and 
Father of the other. 

We notice, next, that the Father has sent the Son 
into the world, and that he is ever present with him. 
" God so loved the world that he gave his only begot- 
ten Son." ' " God sent not his Son into the world to 
condemn the world." 2 " He that sent me is with 
me." 3 " The Father hath not left me alone." * " I am 
not alone, but I and the Father that sent me." 6 " The 
Father that dwelleth in me." 6 "I am in the Father, 
and the Father in me." 7 "I proceeded forth and came 
from God." 8 "I came forth from the Father." 9 
k - Ilim whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into 
the world." " Him hath God the Father sealed." 10 

Here, again, it is evident that by the Father he 
means the Deity, or Godhead entire, and that he re- 
gards it as one and indivisible. God sent him into the 
world, and hie Father sent him. He proceeded and 
came forth from (rod, and he came forth from the 
Father. In ;ill these passages, he uses the terms 
Father and God as synonymous; nor do we believe 
that a place can be found in the Bible where he uses 
them in a differenl Bense. He does not say that the 

'John 8:16. *8:1T • Jo. 8:89. * Same. » Jo. 8:16. • Jo. 14:10. 
7 14: 11. * Jo. 8:48. 'Jo. 18:88. ,0 Jo. 10:86. Jo. 6:97. 



18 THE TRINITY. 



Son is God, or that, without destroying the unity of 
the Godhead, you can divide it into three persons, each 
one of whom is God ; but on the contrary, he declares 
that the Father is the only time God, and that he 
dwells in his Son. 

But if God is his Father, and is ever present with 
him, have we any evidence that there dwelt in Christ 
any other divine person 1 Are the works which he 
performed, and the doctrine which he delivered to 
men, ascribed to the Father alone, or are they some- 
times ascribed to others ? 

That the Deity dwelt in Christ, and that there was 
in him a mysterious union of the human and the di- 
vine, cannot be disputed. But the question is, whether 
the Father is that Divine Being, or only one person of 
it : whether beside him there is another person called 
God the Son, who is equal with the Father ; and that 
he is the one who became incarnate, and who per- 
formed, in whole or in part, the works of Deity. 
And for the answer we will again appeal to the testi- 
mony of Christ. " I can of mine own self do nothing." l 
" The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth. 
the Father do." 2 " I do nothing of myself." 3 " The 
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." * 

While the Son, then, does the works of God, it is 

i John 5 : 30. a 5 : 19. 3 Jo. 8 : 28. * Jo. 14 : 10. 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 19 

because of the presence of the Father. The Son per- 
il >ims the works, but the power by which he does them 
he attributes to the Father alone. God the Father 
dwells in him, and works through him. "Without him 
he can do nothing. It was the Father who gave him 
the work, and then gives him the power to do it ; and 
while all things are in the hands of the Son, it is, to 
use his own language, because " all things are deliv- 
ered unto me of my Father." 

And here we find that Trinitarians have failed to 
make a very important distinction. They speak of 
the works of the Son as if they were his own, and refer 
us to the place where he declares (John 5 : 17) — " My 
Father worketh hitherto, and I work." And again 
(verse 19) : " For what things soever he [the Father] 
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." And again 
(verse 21): "For as the Father raiseth up the dead 
and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth 
whom he will." But if the Son can do nothing of 
himself — if the Father that dwells in him does the 
works, ;tn«l if the power which the Son has in heaven 
iiiid in earth i.~ (jicrv to him, as he expressly declares 
it is < Matt. 28: L8), — then he is not speaking of works 
which he performs independently of the Father, but 
<>f the works which the Father dwelling in him is per- 
forming through him. And, indeed, this would seem 



20 THE TEINITY. 

to be his meaning in this very place ; for he tells us 
plainly that the Son can do nothing of himself, but 
what he seeth the Father do (John 5:19); and then 
tells us that because " the Father loveth the Son," he 
"showeth him all things that himself doeth," and that 
he will show him even greater things (verse 20) ; and, 
finally, after telling what some of these things are, he 
declares that the Father "hath committed all judg- 
ment unto the Son " (verse 22) ; and that " as the 
Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the 
Son to have life in himself, and hath given him author- 
ity to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of 
man " (verses 26, 27). The Son not only asserts here 
that his life is given to him by the Father, but also the 
authority which he has to execute judgment, and that 
the reason why he has this authority is not because he 
is God, but because he is the Son of man. Of what 
avail is it then, to assert that the Son is God, because 
he did the works of God, when he tells us that he can 
do nothing of himself, and most solemnly declares, 
" the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the 
works " ? 

We notice, next, the one from whom the Son 
received his doctrine. He has revealed to us truths 
on the most important questions that can engage the 
attention of man. Were these his own, or did he 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 21 

receive them from the Father i He has answered this 
question in language which cannot be misunderstood. 
" My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." ' 
"I speak to the world those things which I have 
heard of him." 2 "As my Father hath taught me, I 
speak the.se things." 3 "I speak that which I have 
seen with my Father." 4 " A man that hath told you 
the truth which I have heard of God." " "As I hear, I 
judge." ° " The words that I speak unto you, I speak 
not of myself." 7 " I have given unto them the words 
which thou gavest me." 8 " All things that I have 
heard of my Father, I have made known unto you." 9 

Here, again, it is evident that he uses the terms 
Father and God as synonymous, and that he speaks 
of the Son as the one through whom God revealed his 
truth to man. This doctrine he received from God 
hie lather. It did not come originally from him, but 
God revealed it to him; or, as he expresses it, he was 
taughl these things by bis Father. Then if this doc- 
trim- did ••dine originally from God, but did not come 
originally from his Son, Is the Son God? If we say 
that he is, it is certainly clear thai we deny some of 
the plainesl and mosl positive declarations of our 
Lord. 

Bui if < rod the Father does the works, and is the one 

1 John 7 : 16. - Jo. h : 96. B : 28. * B : 88. ■ h : -io. « Jo. 5 : 80. 



22 THE TRINITY. 

from whom the Son received his doctrine ; from whom 
does he also derive his life % Does the Son have this 
life in himself, or did he receive it from the Father \ 
We have already glanced at this, but wish to notice it 
here a little farther. The answer of Christ is this: 
" The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and 
they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life 
in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in 
himself." ' " As the living Father hath sent me, and I 
live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall 
live by me." 2 " As thou hast given him power over all 
flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as 
thou hast given him." 3 In looking at these passages, 
we should mark two things distinctly. 1st. That the 
life which the Son had was given to him. 2d. The 
life also which he gave to others. The Father hath 
given to the Son to have life ; and as he lives by the 
Father, so we live by him. The Son gives eternal life 
to as many as his Father has given him, because his 
Father has given him power over all flesh. " He that 
hath the Son hath life," because the Father has given 
him to be the life of the world. 

But if the Son is the everlasting God, could he 
have his life given to him? Can he who was from 
eternity be said to depend upon another for his exist- 

i John 5 : 25, 26. a Jo. 6 : 57. 3 Jo. 17 : 2. 



THE TESTIMONY OF CUEIST. 23 

ence, and to have derived from him the power which 
he has over all flesh, and the life which he gives to the 
world '. Are these the exalted views which the Script- 
ures give us of the Deity % And is this " the living God " 
who is self-existent and independent, and of whom it 
is said that he " only hath immortality, dwelling in the 
light which no man can approach unto ?" And, further, 
if the Son can have his life from the Father, and yet 
be equal with him, why does he not say that as he lives 
by the Father, so does the Father live by him ; that as 
the Son has life in himself, so has he given to the 
Father to have life in himself; and that the Son has 
given to the Father power over all flesh, and that all 
things are delivered into the hands of the Father by 
the Son ? If they can each be dependent upon the 
Other, and yet there be but one Supreme Being, and 
that one, too, independent and eternal, why is the 
Son alone represented as being dependent upon the 
Father, and the Father as depending upon none'!; 

Bat, leaving this, wewish to call attention to another 
point in the testimony of Christ, which, in the discus- 
sion of this question is certainly of the first importance. 
In speaking of the destruction of the Temple at Jeru- 
salem, and of the calamities which should befall the 
inhabitants of the city and nation, he tells his disciples 
(Matt. 24:36) — "But of that day and hour knoweth 



24 THE TRINITY. 

no man, no, not the angels of heaven, hut my Father 
only" Mark, in speaking of the same event, gives this 
as his language : " But of that day and hour knoweth 
no man; no, not the angels which are in heaven, 
neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) 

If our Saviour did use these words, it is certain 
there was one thing which the Son did not know. It 
is certain that there was one thing which was not 
known to any except the Father. This much - would 
at least follow, whether we take his statement as re- 
corded by Matthew, or by Mark. Matthew tells us 
that the time is known to the Father only / while 
Mark states that it is not known to men or angels, 
neither the Son, but the Father. The genuineness of 
these passages has never, we believe, been questioned, 
and Trinitarians have had no little difficulty in trying 
to explain them. The truth is, there can be no con- 
struction put upon them which can be reconciled with 
the doctrine that the Son is God, begotten from eter- 
nity, and this some of their ablest writers most frankly 
admit. And unless we accept his own statements 
when he tells us : " As my Father hath taught me, I 
speak these things ;" and again, " I speak that which I 
have seen with my Father ;" or, still more explicitly, 
ih All things that I have heard of my Father, I have 
made known unto you;" "A man that hath told you 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 25 

the truth which I have heard of God" — unless we 
accept these, and other similar declarations, in which 
he speaks of himself as revealing the things which the 
indwelling Father had revealed to him, and then 
admit that here was one thing which the Son did not 
know, because the Father had not told him, we must 
either reject his testimony, or else deny the omniscience 
of God. 

There would be no difficulty in explaining these 
passages, if we were willing to admit that by the Son 
is meant the humanity of our Lord, and by the Father 
the I >eity ; since there might be many things which 
God the Father had not revealed to his Son. And, 
indeed, that the Son should know all things, on this 
supposition, would be impossible. Whereas to assert 
that the Son is himself God, and yet did not know, 
won M be an absurdity, as it seems to us, which is only 
equaled by the assertion that there are three persons, 
each one of whom is supremely divine, and yet only 
<»nc Supreme Being. So long as we acknowledge 
these to be the words of Christ, so long we must admit 
that there was <>ne thing, at least, which the Son did 
nol know, and hence t hat lie was not equal with the 
Father. 

Bu1 it' this la what he teaches in this place, does he 
in any Other place use language which would seem to 



26 



THE TRINITY. 



lead us to a different conclusion ? Does the Son ever 
claim, anywhere, an absolute equality with the Father? 
If he ever did, we very frankly acknowledge that we 
do not know where it is. If he ever taught that he 
was God, or that he was equal with the Father, we 
have never been able to find it ; but, on the contrary, 
he expressly declares : "My Father is greater than I." 
Trinitarians say that he is here speaking of himself as 
the envoy or messenger of God; and that in this sense 
the Father might be regarded as greater than the Son. 
But will these words bear that construction ? and can 
it in any sense be affirmed that there is one greater 
than the Supreme God ? If the Son was sent into the 
world by his Father; if his Father delivered all things 
into his hands— gave him the kingdom over which he 
rules, gave him power over all flesh, gave him all the 
power which the Son has, gave him even the words 
which he was to speak, and the life which he was to 
bestow — does not this prove, conclusively, that the 
Father is, as the Son declared, greater than the Son ? 
Is not he who had the power and the authority from 
eternity, greater than the one to whom he gave it? 
And if the Father had this power and this life in him- 
self, and the Son did not have it, only as he received 
it from the Father ; is not the Father greater than the 
Son? 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 27 

"We might call attention to a mimber of other 
passages, in which Christ proclaims the same doctrine 
that we have found him teaching all along, viz., that 
the Father is God, and that what the Son has, his 
Father has given to him. But we do not deem it 
mit. We have already gone through the greater 
portion of his testimony, touching this question, and 
have found that the only Deity, or divine person, of 
which he has spoken, thus far, is the Father; and that 
if there is any other one dwelling in him, he has not 
yi-t Intimated it. We have seen: 1st. That he calls 
the Deity his Father. 2d. That he declares him to be 
his God. 3d. That he testifies of God his Father, that 
he has sent him into the world. 4th. That his Father 
ie ever present with him, and dwells in him. 5th. 
That the Son can do nothing of himself, but that the 
Father who dwells in him, "he doeth the works." 
6th. That the doctrine which he came to teach was 
not his own, but had been taught him by his Father. 
7th. That even for his life, he was dependent upon 
liitu who, alone, lia<l life in himself, and whom he 
therefore terms the " living Father." 8th. That while 
tin- Father revealed to the Son all things that were 
ary for him to know, there were some things 
which he had qoI made known to him, and that these 
were known to the Father only. 9th. The Father is 



28 THE TEINITY. 

greater than the Son. 10th. That the power and 
authority which the Son has, either in heaven or upon 
earth, is not his own, but has been given to him by 
the same everlasting Father, from whom he has re- 
ceived all things, and upon whom all beings are alike 
dependent. 

In the establishment of these points we have not 
had any difficulty in reconciling the different state- 
ments of Christ, because they appeared contradictory, 
but have had a uniform testimony. He has not said 
that God was his Father, and then again that he Mas 
not ; neither has he testified that the Father dwelt in 
him, and worked through him, and then, again, that 
some other divine person had done these things. But 
he has, invariably, ascribed all that he has, and all that 
he does, to God the Father. His Father sent him, 
and he came. He revealed to the Son his truth, and 
the Son revealed it to men, and revealed to them the 
Father. 

And now we wish to examine some passages where 
it is claimed that Christ teaches the supreme divinity, 
of the Son. If he ever did use language which would 
lead us to this conclusion, it would certainly seem to 
contradict what he has most clearly taught us so far, 
and should therefore receive very special attention. 

It is thought that the Son is God because he receives 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 29 

divine honors. He permitted the disciples and others 
to worship him. He said that "all men should honor 
the Son, even as they honor the Father." We admit 
it ; and if this is evidence that the Son is himself God, 
we must concede the fact, though we may not be able 
to comprehend it. But was it the humanity of Christ 
which they worshiped, or was it the Deity which 
dwelt in that humanity ? And if it was the Deity, 
why not say it was the Father? Have we not seen 
that he dwelt in Christ ? and is he not divine ? Surely 
Christ has not spoken of any other person as dwelling 
in him wdio was God ; and if this be true, it would 
seem that we not only may, but must conclude that 
the one which they worshiped was the Father. Our 
Saviour has told us that the Father is God, and has said 
that we should worship him. "The hour cometh,'- 
Baid he, "when ye shall neither in this mountain, noi 
yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." And again, 
" But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true 
worshipers shall worship the Father inspirit and in 
truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him." 
And then, to show that by the Father he means the 
Godhead entire, he adds : "God is a spirit, and they 
that worship him mist worship him in spirit and in 
truth." Toargue thai the Son is God because of these 
acts of divine worship, is like learned men writing 



30 THE TRINITY. 

volumes, to prove his divinity, from the works which 
he performed, when, according to his own testimony, 
these works were not his, but the Father's that dwelt 
in him. To be consistent, should we not say, that, as 
the Father, who dwelt in Christ, did the works, so, 
too, he was the one in him who was worshiped ? 

They approached the Son in order to worship the 
Father, because Christ has taught that no man can 
come to the Father except by the Son. In the Son 
dwelt an undivided Deity. In him, and with him, is 
the Lord God our Redeemer ; and beside him, as the 
Bible everywhere teaches, there is no Saviour. In him 
dwelt not only " all the fullness of the Godhead," but 
in him alone is the Divine Trinity of Father, and Son, 
and Holy Spirit. The Father is the Deity ; the only 
divine person of which the Son has ever spoken. He 
is not only our Father and our God, but is also "the 
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." And 
while he is God alone, he has a Son, who was begotten 
by him, and was born of a woman; and this son is the 
man in whom the Father dwelt, and with whom he is 
so united, that, as Christ himself declares, he and the 
Father are one. The son is so in the Father, and the 
Father in him, that he that has seen the Son, has seen 
the Father. But no one has ever seen the Father, 
except through the Son, or ever can see him. No one 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHEIST. 31 

has seen his shape, or heard his voice (John 5 : 37) ; and 
because God, out of Christ, is a consuming tire, he 
therefore tells Moses that no one can see his face and 
live. And as the Father can be seen only through the 
Son, or in him, so neither is there any other way by 
which he can be approached and worshiped. In 
other words, we come to the Father, and commune 
with him, through the Son ; as we converse with the 
soul of a man through his body. We cannot see his 
soul, except in his face, nor can we speak to it. "We 
cannot see its form, nor hear its voice; nor can we 
approach to it except through the body, which is a 
kind of living logos to the soul, in a .similar way as, in 
Christ, the Son is to the Father. Hence we read that 
the Son is " the way," and " the door," and that " no 
ni.ii i cometh unto the Father but by me;" and other 
.similar expressions. 

But if it still be said that the Son does himself 
receive great honors, and that he is a being most 
highly exalted, we will very frankly admit it, and will 
.-.iy that it is because of his union with the Father. 
We read thai "God also hath highly exalted him, and 
given him a name which is above every name; that at 
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in 
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 



32 THE TRINITY. 

Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." We 
believe that the Son does occupy this very exalted 
position, and that while it proves the great honor 
which has been conferred upon him, it is also proof 
conclusive that he is not himself God. For if he was, 
he could not be exalted by another ; neither could he 
have a name given to him. The awful name of the 
Deity is above every name in the universe, and was 
from eternity ; and there can be no greater Being who 
is able to exalt him. And, beside, let it be remem- 
bered, that God is the one who is here said to have 
exalted his Son, showing that the Son is not God ; and, 
further, that while every knee bows, and every tongue 
confesses to the Son, it is distinctly stated that this is 
done to the glory of God the Father. And, hence, 
when Christ tells us that all men should honor the Son 
as they honor the Father, he immediately adds : " He 
that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father 
which hath sent him." And, hence, he tells us again : 
" He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but 
on him that sent me." By which he means that in 
receiving the Son, they receive the Father, and that in 
honoring him, they do thereby honor the Father who 
dwells in him, and who has exalted him " with his 
right hand to be a prince and a Saviour." But more 
on this point when we come to the testimony of Paul. 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 33 

It is claimed again that the Son is God because he 

is represented as being invested with the attributes of 

Deity. He knew, it is said, what was in the heart 

of man, which proves his omniscience. His mighty 

works and words are referred to as evidences of his 

omnipotence. He tells his disciples that he will be 

with them always, and that wherever two or three are 

assembled in his name, he will be there to bless them, 

which proves his omnipresence. As to the first, his 

omniscience, — -before they can establish this point it 

will be necessary to show two things : 1st. That the 

knowledge which the Son had was his own; and 2d. 

That he knew all things. But we have already seen 

that there was one thing which he did not know. And 

how lie came in possession of that which he did know, 

we have only to refer again to what he has himself 

taught us. We have seen that his doctrine was not 

his, l-iit the Father's that sent him; that all things 

which hie Father had revealed to him he had made 

known unto his disciples ; that he had given them the 

worde which had been given him; had spoken these 

things .1- hi- Father taught him, and was a man who 

had told them the truth which he had heard of God. 

I' 1 '!"<•■- not claim to have any knowledge which was 

not derived from the Father. 

Ami La it anything strange that he should seem to 
8 



3-4 THE TRINITY. 

have unlimited power, when he was armed with the 
strength of his Father and his God ? Has he not told 
us, over and over, that this power was given to him, 
and that he could do nothing of himself? And if the 
Son derived this power and this knowledge from 
another, and that one is declared to be the Father, 
why need we insist, contrary to the evidence, that the 
Son is also God, and equal with the Father ? Can two 
Deities, or two persons, equally divine, do more than 
one? And if the Son only speaks of one, and testifies 
that from him he has received all things, why should 
we conclude that there are two '. 

The promise which the Saviour made, that lie 
would always be with his people, we will speak of in 
another chapter. 

The Son declares that he will judge' the world. 
We must all appear before the judgment seat of 
Christ. Therefore it is argued that the Son is God. 
To know the secrets of all hearts, and to reward every 
man according to his deeds, is the work of an infinitely 
wise Being. On this important point let us once 
more refer to the words of Christ : " The Father," he 
says, " judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg- 
ment auto the Son . . . And hath given him authority 
to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of 
man." (John 5 : 22, 27). " I can of mine own self 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 35 

do nothing; as 1 hear, 1 judge, and my judgment is 
just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will 
of the Father which hath sent me" (verse 30). The 
authority which he has to execute judgment, then, 
is given to him by the Father ; and the reason why he 
lias committed this judgment unto the Son is because 
he is the Son of man. 

Again, this judgment which he pronounces is not 
his own, but is what he has heard. He can do nothing 
of himself, but as he hears, he judges y and his judg- 
ment is just, not because he is God, but because he 
is submissive to the will of God. God, then, who 
in this world worked and revealed himself to men 
through his Son, will, on that solemn day, judge them 
by him; or, as Paul expresses it, u he hath appointed 
;i day in the which he will judge the world in right- 
eousness by thai man whom he hath ordained." 

There are a few other passages from which some 
have inferred the separate divinity of the Son, but we 
shall not notice them at present. We have already 
examined nearly all that ('lirist has said directly upon 
this important subject; and those passages which we 
bave only partially considered, or have passed over in 
Bilence, will receive due attention at the proper place. 

From the examination made, it is evident that by 
the Father, Ohrisl means the Deity. There certainly 



36 THE TRESTTY. 

is not a place in his testimony, or in the Bible, where 
by the Father is not meant the everlasting Jehovah. 
To this we do not think that any one will take excep- 
tion. Nor is there a place where Christ ever taught 
that there is a Son who was born from eternity, or 
that there are three persons in one God, or that such 
a division of the Deity is possible. On the contrary, 
he asserts the truth of the first and great command- 
ment, that " the Lord our God is one Lord," while to 
the young man who calls him good Master, he replies, 
" there is none good but one, that is God." 

But if he never destroyed the unity of the God- 
head by dividing it into persons, each one of whom is 
perfect Deity ; and if, as we shall see hereafter, no 
other inspired writer ever did, then why should we 
believe that such a doctrine is true? If the Bible 
does not declare it, and if the Christian church never 
taught it until it became corrupted, why should we 
teach it ? The doctrine of a Son by " eternal genera- 
tion," and of a Trinity of persons from eternity, was 
not received and taught as the faith of the church 
until the fourth century; and that the church had 
already lost its purity and its spiritual power, and that 
it did, from that time, become more and more corrupt, 
is a fact in history known to all. Nor has it to-day 
the power which it once had, nor will it ever have 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 87 

again until it acknowledges and worships one God 
instead of three. 

Christ has said that the Father was God ; but he 
never said that any one else was. He tells us that 
the Son is a man, and he calls him the Son of man, 
and also the Son of God ; but he never said that the 
Son himself was God. And we agree with Doctor 
Adam Clark, that the doctrine of the eternal sonship 
of Christ is a self-contradiction, and one of the great- 
est absurdities that the Christian church ever taught. 

This learned commentator, speaking of this subject, 
in his note on Luke 1:35, says: "I reject this doc- 
trine for the following reasons : 1st. I have not been 
able to find any express declarations in the Scriptures 
concerning it. 2d. If Christ be the Son of God, as 
to his divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for 
Bon implies a Father; and Father implies, in reference 
to Son, precedency in time, if not in nature, too. 
Father and Son imply the idea of generation; and 
generation implies a time in which it was effected, and 
time also antecedent to such generation. 3d. If Christ 
be the Son of God as to his divine nature, then the 
pother ie of necessity prior, consequently superior to 
him. Ith. Again, if this divine nature were begot- 
ten of the Father, then it must be in time; i. e., there 
wu b period in which it did not exist, and a period 



38 THE TRINITY. 

when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity 
of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his 
Godhead. 5th. To say that he was begotten from all 
eternity is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase 
eternal Son is a self -contradiction. Eternity is that 
which had no beginning, nor stands in reference to 
time. Son supposes time, generation, and a father / 
and time also antecedent to such generation. There- 
fore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and 
eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essen- 
tially different and opposite ideas." (Clark's Com., 
vol. 5, p. 361.) 

From this it will be seen that Doctor Clark, 
though he believed in a Trinity of persons, did 
not believe in the eternal Sonship of our Lord ; nor 
do we believe that his arguments on this subject have 
ever been answered, or ever cau be. And if it is 
absurd to say that the Deity in Christ was a Son born 
from eternity, is it not equally absurd to say that this 
divine nature was again born of a woman? That 
God the Son, who was begotten by the Father from 
eternity, and who, though begotten, was yet equal 
with him, was after this begotten again in time, and 
was born of Mary? Is it not, in fact, a monstrous 
doctrine to say that the Deity can be born of any one ? 
If he can be, or if one person of the Deity can be born 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 39 

of another person, then God is not the one, undi- 
vided, self-existent, independent and eternal Being 
which we have taught that he is, and which the 
Scriptures declare him to be; nor is that part or 
person which was begotten and born, equal to the 
one by whom it was begotten. If we say that the 
one born is not equal, we deny his divinity; and 
it* we contend that, though dependent, he is yet equal, 
we must bury forever our reason, and, at the same 
time, reject the teachings of the Bible. 

Further, if we say that the Father is God, and that 
tin- Son is God, and that the one was begotten by the 
other, we either assert that the Son was begotten by 
himself, and is his own Father, and that the Father 
i- his own Son; or else we believe in a plurality of 
Qods, and that one is inferior and subordinate to the 
other. For Christ has not only taught that the Son is 
dependenl upon the Father, but that he is also in 
subjection to him. The Father commands, and the 
Son obeys. Be is a man of sorrows doing the will 
of the Father, pleading with him earnestly in prayer, 
and obedienl even unto death. The Father loves him 
because be keeps his commandments, and is ever 
submissive to bis will; and Leal it might be said that 
the subjection of the Son to the Father was only 
during the days <>f bis humiliation on earth, the 



40 THE TKmiTY. 

Scriptures teach ( 1 Cor. 15 : 28 ) that it will be 
eternal. 

Then if the Son is God, we must admit that there 
are at least two Deities, and that one is subordinate 
to the other. But if we say that the Son is a man, 
and that, while the Father is the divinity of our 
Lord, the Son is his humanity, then we have but 
one God, who is the Father of us all, and one Lord 
Jesus Christ, in whom, as the church teaches, there 
are two perfect natures — perfect God and perfect 
man. Whereas, on the supposition of three persons, 
only one of whom became incarnate, there is in 
Christ only a part of the Deity. He would have in 
him the whole nature of man, and only a part of 
the nature of God; or else he is a man in whom 
dwells only one of three Deities. And if this is 
unreasonable, as it is unscriptural, why should we 
believe it ? Why not accept the testimony of Christ, 
and say that the Father is God, and that the Son, who 
labors and learns, prays and obeys, and suffers and 
dies, is the man in whom the Father dwells? Why 
insist that the Deity in Christ was the Son, when 
he declares it to be the Father, and has never spoken 
of any one else ? To claim that there are two when 
he only speaks of one, and when all, in fact, agree 
that there is but one, would seem to do violence to 
our reason that we might reject the truth of God. 



THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST. 41 

"We close this part of the evidence with one more 
quotation from our Lord's testimony, which is cer- 
tainly a very remarkable one, but upon which we will 
make no comment at present : " Jesus answered them, 
Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods? If 
he called them Gods, unto whom the Word of God 
came, and the Scripture cannot he broken, say ye 
of Mm, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent 
into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said, I 
am the Sox of God i " 



CHAPTER III. 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 

THE apostle Paul has said more upon the ques- 
tion under consideration than any other inspired 
writer. Indeed, if we leave out the testimony of 
Christ, as recorded in the Gospels and in the Apoca- 
lypse, Paul has written more which bears directly upon 
the subject, than all the other writers of the New Tes- 
tament. We shall not, therefore, attempt to give all 
that he has taught us concerning the unity of God, 
and the person and character of his Son ; but will try 
to so arrange his evidence under different heads, that 
by referring to a part, we may be able to form a cor- 
rect opinion as to the whole. 

We notice, first, that he speaks of but one God, 
and declares that one to be the Father. " There is," 
he states, " none other God but one." " There is but 
one God the Father." ' " One God and Father of all, 
who is above all, and through all, and in you all." 4 

1 1 Cor. 8 : 4. fi. 2 Eph. 4 : 6. 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 48 

"There is one God." 1 Beside these, there are about 
twenty other places where he calls God " the Father," 
and " our Father," and not a single place where he 
does not seem to use these terms as synonymous, or 
where he ever speaks of the Godhead as if it could be 
divided. And in this we see how perfectly the testi- 
mony of Paul agrees with that of Christ ; for while 
the latter declares that the Father is God, and that he 
is •• the only true God," so Paul tells us that there is 
but one God, and that one is the Father. While they 
both talk so much about God the Father, they neither 
of them ever use the expression "God the Son." If 
there is such a person, they have never revealed it; 
and if such a one does exist, it is certainly very strange 
that this phrase is not to be found in the writings of 
Paid, especially, since he speaks bo much about "God 
tin- Father." If they are two distinct persons of the 
Godhead, and are equally divine, why does he speak 
bo man) times of God the Father, and never once of 
God the Son? It is about the Godhead of the Son 
that we Bhoold expect him most to speak and write, 
since il is hi- divinity alone that has been questioned. 
No one has ever doubted the Deity of the Father, and 
it there ie a second person called God the Son, and it. 
is necessary thai we should believe in him as such, why 

i Tim 8:5, 



4 4 THE TRINITY. 

has not Paul revealed it % His own answer is : " There 
is but one God the Father'*' 1 — "One God and Father 
of a ll"_« The Father of Spirits." 

But he not only declares that God is one, and that 
he is our Father, but he states, further, that he is the 
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We find 
him more than once exclaiming : "Blessed be the God 
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. Sometimes 
he calls him " the Father " of Christ, and in one place 
" the God of our Lord Jesus Christ." If there was in 
Christ, then, any other Deity, or divine person, except 
the Father, that divine person had a Father and a 
God the same as we have, and hence could not be him- 
self supreme. 

This is the statement of Paul, many times repeated, 
and with it agrees, as we have already seen, the testi- 
mony of Christ himself. Our Father and our God is 
his Father and his God ; and if there is in Christ still 
another divine being, who is God the Son, we must 
be willing to admit that there are two Deities, and 
that one is inferior to the other. For if the one is the 
God and Father of the other, it would make the first a 
being as distinct from the second as he is from us; 
and if the Father sustains to the Son the same relation 
that he does to all other beings, and if to say that one 
is our God, implies that he is our Creator, then the 
Son is a created being. 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 45 

Now. if the apostle believed that the Son was God, 
and desired to teach this truth to us, as it is claimed 
he did ; and if it is his divinity alone which was then, 
and is novj, disputed, would he have taken this 
method to prove it A Would he have told us that 
the Son had a Father and a God, the same as we have ? 
and that the Father was the " one God and Father of 
all," — ''the Father of mercies, and the God of all com- 
fort '* \ If he wanted to convince us that the Son was 
supremely divine, and equal with the Father, would 
we not expect to hear him say : "Blessed be God the 
Son,*' — " There is but one God the Son," — " One God 
the Son, who is above all, and through all, and in all" ? 
If he uses these expressions so frequently in reference 
to the Father, whose divinity has never been ques- 
tioned, why does he not sometimes use them when 
speaking of the Son \ And, further, if there dwelt in 
Christ a Divine Son, born from eternity, whose God 
to be '■ II'- is not the God of the human Son in whom 
be i- Bald to dwell ; nor is he our God, because the one 
wlio sustains to as that relation is declared to be the 
Father. lie is not, according to the testimony of Paul, 
the God of any one, but had himself both a Father and 
a God. 

We call attention to this, because in every place 
where the Godhead of the Son is flatly contradicted, 



4(5 THE TRINITY. 

or made impossible, Trinitarians tell us that the writer 
is there only speaking of the humanity of the Son of 
God, but that there is in him another Son who is the 
eternal Jehovah. And hence we are often in doubt 
as to which Son they are talking about, the human or 
the divine ; and when the Son of God is himself speak- 
ing, we do not know which person he means, or who 
the speaker in that place may be. We must use our 
best judgment, learned men tell us, and decide from 
the circumstances, and the language used, whether the 
man is speaking or the Deity. But if there is only 
one Supreme Being, and that one is called the Father ; 
if he is declared to be the God and Father of all, who 
is above all, and in all, and is even declared to be the 
God of our Lord Jesus Christ ; then, if there is beside 
him a Son who is supremely divine, whose Deity is 
he, and where does he belong? If the divinity of our 
Lord is the Son, and not the Father, this divine Son 
must be the God and Father of our Lord's humanity, 
or else he is not a Deity at all. But the Scriptures 
show us plainly that he cannot be the God of any one. 
They speak of another person, who is the God and 
Father of all created beings, and declare that beside 
him there can be no other. But more on this point 
hereafter. 

We notice, next, that while the apostle speaks of 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 47 

the Father as our God, and the one " who is above all," 
he describes the Son as a man through whom God the 
Father forgives sins, and dispenses his blessings unto 
men, and by whom he will judge them at the last day. 
We will give his own words. "God," he says, "hath 
appointed a day in the which he will judge the world 
in righteousness by thai man whom he hath ordained." ' 
" Be it known unto you, therefore, men and brethren, 
that through this man is preached unto you the for- 
giveness of sins." 1 "Wherefore, as by one man sin 
entered into the world, and death by sin . . . For if 
through the offense of one [man], many be dead, much 
more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is 
by am mini. Ji'xus C/irisf, hath abounded unto many. 
. . . For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, 
tn ml i more they which receive abundance of grace, 
:m<l <>f the gifl of righteousness, Bhal] reign in life by 
one man . Jesus Christ. . . . Therefore, as by the 
offense of one man], judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation; even bo by the righteousness of one 
niin , the free gift came; . . . for as by one man's diso- 
bedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience 
of one man] shall manj be made righteous." 1 "For 
since by man came death, by wnn came also the resurrec 
lion of the dead. . . . For as in Adam all die, even so in 

- it : 81. ■ kdU U : 8S '' Rom. B : IS, IB, it. 18, 19. 



48 THE TRINITY. 

Christ shall all be made alive. . . . The first man, Adam, 
was made a living soul ; the last Adam was made a quick- 
ening spirit . . . The first man is of the earth earthy ; 
the second man is the Lord from heaven." ' " He which 
raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus. 
. . . All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to 
himself by Jesus Christ. ... To wit, that God was in 
Christ reconciling the world unto himself.'' a " For 
through him [Christ] we both [Jews and Gentiles] have 
access by one spirit unto the Father." 3 "Do all in the 
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the 
Father by him." 4 " God hath not appointed us to 
wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus 
Christ." 6 "There is one God, and one mediator be- 
tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 6 "For 
this man was counted worthy of more glory than 
Moses. . . . But this man, after he had offered one 
sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand 
of God." T 

The great importance of this evidence is our reason 
for giving so much of it. The apostle here teaches 
that what we enjoy in this life, and all that we can 
hope to be in the life to come, we receive from God 
the Father through the mediation and atonement of 
his Son, the man Christ Jesus. All that the Son of 

1 1 Cor. 15 : 21, 22, 45, 47. 2 2 Cor. 4 : 14: 5 : 18, 19. » Eph. 2 : 18. • Col. 
3:17. 6 lThe8.5:9. •! Tim. 2:5. 7 Heb. 3 :3; 10 : 12. 



THE TESTIM02HT OF PAUL. 49 



and to reinstate him in the divine favor, and which has 
been regarded as the proof of his divinity, is ascribed 
to him here as the work of a man. Through him we 
have pardon and salvation, the gift of the Spirit, the 
resurrection of the dead, and everlasting life beyond 
the grave. As by one man sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin, so has the grace of God, and the gift 
by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, abounded 
unto many. And as by the offense of one man, death 
reigned by one, and judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation, so by the righteousness of one man the 
free gift came, and they which receive of this gift, and 
of the abundance of grace, shall reign in life by him. 
As by man came death, by man came also the resur- 
rection of the dead; and as by the offense of one all 
must die, so in the man Christ Jesus, shall all be made 
alive. In this man God is now reconciling the world 
unto himself and by him he will judge it at the time 
appointed. While there is but one God the Father, 
In- declares that there is but one mediator, and that he 
i.- ///' nut n ( Tbrist Jesus. Through this same man we 
have access unto flu; Father, and are commanded to do 
all things in his name, giving thanks to God and the 
Father thereby. 

While we have all things, then, through the Son 



50 THE TRINITY. 

of God, and while his name is the only one which has 
ever been given whereby we can be saved ; the one 
who has made these provisions, and who has appointed 
this man to be our Prince and Saviour, is God the 
Father. To deny this, in the face of the evidence 
before us, would be as unreasonable as to dispute 
against the sun. If we accept the testimony, we must 
admit that the only living and true God is the Father,, 
and that the one through whom he bestows these 
blessings, is the man whom we call Jesus, and who is. 
also called the Son of God. 

But the apostle teaches, further, that this same per- 
son died, and was raised from the dead by the power 
of God. The many statements which he makes, as to 
the fact of his death and resurrection, are so familiar 
to all, that we do not deem it necessary to give any of 
them. He does not say that the humanity of the Son 
suffered and died, but that Jesus Christ, and God's 
Son, was dead and buried ; and that he was declared 
to be the So?r of God hy his resurrection from the 
dead. He tells us that that great and exalted being 
who performs the works of Deity, and who has a 
name which is above every name ; the one before 
whom every knee shall bow, and to whom every 
tongue shall confess ; that this same exalted personage 
became obedient unto death, even the death of the 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 51 

cross. He who receives these honors, and who is to 
be the judge of quick and dead, and who, for these 
reasons, is thought to be God; did, according to his 
own testimony, and according to the testimony of all 
his apostles, actually suffer and die, and had a resur- 
rection from the dead, the same as will other men. 
And not only does he state that the Son of God died, 
but that he was raised from the dead by the Father. 
He does not intimate that there was in Christ one 
who is called God the Son, and that he was the one 
\vh.» raised up our Lord from the dead, or that he 
assisted in his resurrection, or even that there is such 
a being. But he does say that God raised him up, and 
then, that there may be no mistake, he declares that it 
is " God the Father who raised him from the dead ; " 
and, .main, that "Christ was raised up from the dead 
by the glory of the Father." 

Bui it is thought that if there was not in Christ 
one who is called God the Son, there could be no 
meril in hie death. It' the being who suffered and 
died wa- m>t divine, lie could not make an atonement 
tor -in. Ii w.i- the glory of his divinity, we are told, 
which "penetrated and surrounded his humanity," 
that ij-ive efficacy to the shedding of his blood, where- 
by an otfended Deity became reconciled to rebellious 
man. But, surely, it was not the divinity in Christ 



52 THE TRINITY. 

which died, and was raised from the dead ; and if not, 
what good could that Deity do more than any other \ 
If it dwelt in Christ, and made his sacrifice acceptable 
to God, because of its union with his humanity, could 
not the Father do the same? Did he not dwell in 
Christ ? and could not his divinity " penetrate and 
surround" the humanity of our Lord, so as to make 
his offering as meritorious as if some other divine 
person had been in him ? And, besides, if the Son is 
God, and God the Father had to be reconciled by such 
an infinite sacrifice; who was there to reconcile God 
the Son ? If he is God, as is claimed, man had broken 
his law, and had trampled his honor in the dust, and 
would be under his displeasure, the same as he was 
under the Father's. On this supposition he, too, would 
need to be reconciled ; and if it be said that in mak- 
ing satisfaction to his Father, he made satisfaction to 
all, then we admit that one person in the Trinity can 
make his broken law honorable, and an atonement for 
the sins of the world, by the offering which he him- 
self makes ; and if God the Son can do this, so could 
God the Father, and there would still be no necessity 
for any but the Father. But the Bible does not speak 
of but one that had to be reconciled, and that one was 
the Father ; and, indeed, it does not even say that he 
had to be reconciled to man, but that man had to be 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 53 

reconciled to him, and that this reconciliation was 
effected through his Son. In other words, it declares 
" that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto 
himself," and that " when we were enemies, we were 
reconciled to God by the death of his Son." 

But leaving this part of the evidence, about which 
much more might be said, we wish to consider another 
point in the testimony of Paul, which is certainly of 
great importance, and which, we think, ought to be a 
settlement of the whole question. While the Son has 
a kingdom, which, as we have seen, was given to him 
by the Father; and while the apostle declares that the 
Bon must reign until all his enemies have been sub- 
dued ; there is a time coming, he declares further, when 
the Son shall have put all things under his feet, and 
that after this he will deliver up the kingdom to the 
Father, and will himself become subject to him. He 
ha.- given this in language so plain that we cannot pos- 
sibly misunderstand him. After telling us that as by 
man came death, by man came also the resurrection of 
fhr dead; and that as in Adam all die, so in Christ 
dial] all be made alive, he adds: "Then cometh the 
end, when !].• -h.ill have delivered dp the kingdom to 
God, even the Father; when he shall have put down 
all rule and all authority and power. For he must 
reign till he hath put :ill enemies under his feet. The 



54 THE TRINITY. 

last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. . . . And 
when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall 
the Son also himself he subject unto him that put all 
things under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 
15, 24-28.) 

While the Son, then, has now a kingdom, and 
while he will reign over it, until all his enemies have 
been subdued ; the one who gave him this kingdom, 
and by whose power he is to conquer his foes, is the 
Father. And when this is accomplished, then will the 
Son deliver up the kingdom to God his Father, and 
will forever after become one of his subjects. 

But if the Son is indeed himself God, would there 
ever be a time when he would be without a kingdom, 
and when he would no longer be acknowledged as our 
king '. — a time when the power and authority which 
he now has will be exercised by another, and when the 
only divine person who is known and worshiped as 
" God over all " is the Father ? The Son is to become 
subject unto the Father, that the latter may be all and 
in all. Then is the Son God ? Can one person who 
is supremely divine be in subjection to another forever ? 
The apostle is very careful to inform us that the Father 
cannot be subject unto the Son. "When he saith all 
things are put under him [that is under the Son], it is 
manifest," he tells us, " that he [the Father] is excepted 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 00 

wl ich did put all things under him." And if the 
Bather put all things under the Son, and cannot be 
subject to him because he is God, how can the Son be 
God and jet be subject to the Father? What kind of 
a Deity is he who is no longer Lord and King, but who 
has been divested of his power and authority in the 
government of the universe, and is himself in subjec- 
tion to the Supreme God? And yet this is the subor- 
dinate position which the Son is to occupy, according 
to these clear and most positive statements of the 
apostle, and there is not a word of testimony in the 
Bible to contradict it. 

We cannot say that it is simply the humanity of 
the Son which is to become subject unto the Father, 
and that he has a divinity which will still continue to 
be our supreme ruler the same as before; that God the 
Bon, who is one person of the Trinity, and who, as 
such, reigns over men and exercises his authority now, 
through his humanity, will then no longer reign over 
tin-in visibly, and through the medium of his human 
nature, bu1 directly and immediately ; and that he will 
still be our God and King immortal, though invisible 
to all. We cannot explain it in this way because it 
would contradict the testimony. It does not say that 
the kingdom will be delivered up to God the Sou; or 
thai be will have any .-hart; in the administration of its 



56 THE TRINITY. 

government; or that the Trinity, as one God, will 
reign supreme ; or that the Father, in the name of the 
three, will assume the reins of government ; but it 
declares that the kingdom will be delivered up to 
" God even the Father ;" that it was the Father who 
put all things under the Son, and that it is to the 
Father that all things are to be surrendered, that he 
may be all in all. All things are to become subject to 
him, and if any of them are Deities, we must admit a plu- 
rality, and also that they are subordinate to the Father. 
In this very remarkable passage, the apostle has 
certainly taught us some of the greatest truths which 
have ever been revealed to man. From it we may 
learn who the Son is, for what purpose he came into 
the world, and why he has been so highly exalted of 
God. Trinitarians have tried to explain his depend- 
ence upon the Father, by saying, that when he was on 
earth, he acted in the capacity of a servant ; and that re- 
garding him in this light, he is described as inferior to 
the one who sent him into the world ; but that this lasted 
only during the days of his humiliation and suffering 
while here in the flesh, and that having finished his work, 
be ascended to the right hand of the Majesty on high, 
where he will remain and be worshiped as " God over 
all blessed forever." But if we are to believe the teach- 
ings of the great apostle, the reign of the Son will not 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. Of 

be eternal; neither will his authority, after a certain 
period in the future, ever be equal again to what it is 
at the present time. ]STor is he said to be inferior to the 
Father, because of his humility and the things which 
he suffered in the world ; but it is because he endured 
these things, and was obedient to the will of his Father, 
that he has been so highly exalted. It is because " he 
became obedient unto death, even the death of the 
cross," that God has given him the place which he now 
occupies, and a name which is above every other. If 
this is not correct, the apostle Paul was certainly mis- 
taken. He has clearly taught us that the Son of God 
did suffer and die, and that while he is now subordi- 
nate to the Father, there is a time coming when his 
power and authority will be less than it is at present, 
ami when lie will become one of the subjects of the 
great and glorious kingdom of our God. 

We might call attention to other passages in which 
he teaches that the Father is the only true and living 
God, and that the Son is that man in whom the Father 
dwelt; but will pass to consider now that part of his 
evidence where it is thought that he teaches a different 
dovtriiic. The writings of Paul have always been re- 
ferred i'< by those who believe in the supreme divinity 
<>f the Son. and it is claimed that he lias given us evi- 
dence of tlii.- which cannot he overthrown. He has, 



58 THE TRINITY. 

in some places, so clearly pointed out a person of the 
Godhead in Christ, who is distinct from the Father, 
and yet equal with him, that to deny it, they think 
would be both foolish and wicked. Now, if this be 
true, it is certainly our duty to find out where this tes- 
timony is. We shall be very much surprised if we 
find that he has, anywhere, contradicted that which he 
has declared to us so many times in the examination 
already made. We do not believe that he has, and will 
give the very passages in dispute to prove that he has 
not. What he has said in the first chapter of Colos- 
sians, and in the first chapter of Hebrews, is most 
frequently quoted, and is that upon which Trinitarians 
rely most when discussing this subject. We will there- 
fore examine carefully what he has said in both places, 
beginning with what he has said in the first chapter of 
Hebrews. 

He begins by telling us that God who " spake in 
times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in 
these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he 
hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also lie 
made the worlds " (verses 1, 2). The first verse certainly 
does not prove that the Son is God — because, if it did, 
it would also prove that the prophets were. But it 
does show that he is not God. God is the one who 
had spoken unto "the fathers," and who was then 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 59 

:ing to the world ; and the persons by whom 
he -pake were at one time the prophets, and at another 
time his Son. It was God who had the message to 
deliver, and the prophets and his Son were the persons 
by whom he delivered it. Then the Deity was a being 
as distinct from his Son as he was from the prophets, 
or as he is from any other being. 

In the second verse he tells us that God has ap- 
pointed his Son heir of all things. But, surely, this 
does not prove that the Son is God ; for, if he was, he 
would not be called an heir of God, nor could he be 
an heir of any one. But he would be the living and 
eternal Jehovah, who has himself many heirs and 
many children, both in heaven and on earth. We are 
" all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus," 
and " as many as are led by the spirit of God, they are 
the sons of God . . . and if children, then heirs — 
«f ( tod, and joint heirs with Christ/' So that he 
being called a Son and an heir is no evidence that he 
'- '■" •!• bnt Is evidence very conclusive that he is not. 
Nor does the feet that he is said to be heir "of all 
things," make the case any stronger; because it de- 
dal.- thai the Son has this by appointment, and that 
''"• one who appointed him is God. If the one who 
made the appointmenl is the Deity, then the one who 
received it cannol I.e. N„r could the Son, if he was 



60 THE TRINITY. 

truly God, be appointed to anything, because there 
could be none greater to make it. 

But he not only tells us in this verse that God has 
appointed his Son heir of all things, but that by him 
" also he made the worlds." We are gravely told that 
the Son is here declared to be the creator of all things, 
and that if this is true, he must be God. But, waiving 
other considerations for the present, does Paul say that 
God's Son made the worlds, or does he say that God 
made them by him f If the apostle is here speaking 
of the creation of the universe, and had declared that 
the Son created it, we might then argue from this 
passage his supreme divinity. But if he tells us that 
Grod made them, and that he did it by his Son, then it 
is evidence that the Son is not himself God. We have 
seen that God will raise the dead, and that he will 
judge the world by that man who is called his Son ; 
that by him we have been reconciled to God, and have 
pardon and salvation ; that by him he was then speak- 
ing to men, though he had spoken to them by the 
prophets, and that by this same one he had also made 
the worlds. Does this prove that the Son is our Cre- 
ator ? If the fact that God works by or through his 
Son is evidence that his Son is equal with him, then 
is that man by whom he will judge the secrets of all 
hearts, and by whom came also the resurrection of the 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 61 

dead, not a man, as he is declared to be, but a Deity ; 
and so also are all the prophets. But if the one who 
made the worlds is a being distinct from the one by 
whom he made them, then this passage proves that the 
Son is not God. 

What we are to understand by the phrase " made 
the worlds," will be considered in the next chapter. 
All that we now insist upon is, that whatever this and 
other similar expressions may mean, as they do not say 
that the Son created, but that God did, by him, we 
cannot argue from them the Son's supreme divinity. 
And that the apostle does not mean to teach it in this 
place, will appear still more clearly as we proceed. 

Having told ns that God has appointed his Son 
heir of all things, and that by him he made the 
worlds, he goes on: "Who being the brightness oi 
his glory, and the express image of his person, and 
upholding all things by the word of his power, when 
he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the 
righl hand of the Majesty on high." If the Son was 
God, lie would not be called the likeness or image 
of God, luit would be the original; neither would it 
lie -aid that he sat down on the right hand of the 
Majesty on high, because this implies that there is one 
higher than himself. The one who sits there is the 
Peity; and lie who sits at his right hand is not that 



62 THE TRINITY. 

Deity, but is the one whom "God hath highly ex- 
alted ; " and hence it is said, in another place, that he 
is set down on the right hand of God. 

Next, he compares the Son to angels: "Being 
made," he says, "so much better than the angels, as 
he hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent 
name than they." The Son, he here declares, was 
made better than the angels, and has obtained, by his 
inheritance, a more excellent name. Then there must 
have been some one who made him, and some one 
from whom he received this inheritance. But he has 
already told us that he received it from God ; that God 
had appointed him heir of all things; and now he 
states that he was made better than the angels, and 
has a more excellent name. Does this look as if he 
was God ? Was the Deity ever made by any one, or 
appointed to anything? And, beside, does not the fact 
that he is compared to angels prove that he is not 
divine? Is it not true that God is not only "better 
than the angels," but infinitely above all created 
beings ? And if we are said to have been made a 
"little lower than the angels," and the Son "much 
better" than they, does it not show that they are all 
finite beings? But he goes on with the comparison: 
"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, 
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? And, 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 63 

again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me 
a Son?" God has never conferred the honor upon 
angels which he has upon his Son. He never said 
to any of them, "Thou art my Son, this day have I 
begotten thee," etc. ; but he did say this to his Son, 
which proves that his Son is "much better," as he 
before stated. God is the person speaking, and his 
Son is the person spoken to. Then, unless the Deity 
was speaking to himself, the Son cannot be God. But 
we proceed. In the next verse he tells us further: 
"And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten 
into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God 
worship him." Paul tells us (Acts 13:33) that the 
words "Thou art my Son ; this day have I "begotten 
thee" and which are quoted from the second Psalm, 
refer to the resurrection of Christ; and Trinitarians 
themselves admit that the expression, when he brmg- 
eth 'in the pr-st -begotten into tJie world, refers to the 
Minn- event. They believe that a more correct trans- 
lation would be: "but when he bringeth again, or the 
second time, his first-begotten into the world;" and 
we think they are correct. The meaning, then, is. 
that when Grod raised his Son from the dead, he com- 
manded the angels to worship him. Bnt if he was 
raised from the dead, can he be called the everlasting 

Jeliovali '. The Sun says himself after his resurrec- 



64 THE TRENTTT. 

tion : " I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold 
I am alive for evermore." Xow, if he was "once 
dead," he cannot be the everliving and eternal God. 
And, further, we must remember that it was not only 
God who raised him from the dead, but that it was 
God who also said that he should be worshiped. The 
Son was to receive these honors by the command or 
appointment of that Being who has appointed him 
heir of all things. It does not say that the angels had 
worshiped him before his resurrection, or that he ever 
would have been afterward, if the Deity had not 
ordained that he should be. But if he had always 
been the object of supreme worship, no command 
would have been necessary; neither could there have 
been a greater one to give that command. The fact 
that God raised him from the dead, and placed him at 
his own right hand, while it shows that the Son has 
been "highly exalted," it also proves that he is a 
being dependent upon another for the position which 
he occupies and the honors which he receives. And 
if it still be asked why he should be thus honored, we 
answer, because he is the representative of God ; be- 
cause God is, through him, reigning over men and 
angels, and because it is declared that in paying him 
these divine honors, they do it to " the glory of ( t « >d 
the Father." God has " appointed " and " ordained " 



THE TESTIMOITY OF PAUL. 65 

that by this man, and/br him, thus it should be, and 
no one can question either his motives or his right so 
to do. 

In the next three verses, still comparing the Son 
to angels, he says : " And of the angels he saith, Who 
maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of 
Are. But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, 
is forever and ever ; a scepter of righteousness is the 
scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteous- 
ness, and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, 
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy 
fellows." 

In the eighth verse, it will be seen that the Son is 
railed God ; and this is, therefore, regarded as another 
proof of his supreme divinity. But this Son is the 
Bame one of whom it is declared that, on a certain 
day, he was begotten of God; whom we are here told 
God has appointed heir of all things, to whom he has 
given a place at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 
and by whom he has spoken to men. lie is the one 
whom the angels are to honor, and of whom it is 
said, in the aexl verse, thai God, even his God, has 
anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows. 
The person addressing him is not only our God, but is 
also his God : and if he gives to his Son the same title 
by which he is himself called, it is evident, from the 



(56 THE TRINITY. 

connection, that he uses it in a subordinate sense. He 
calls him God in the same sense that angels are some- 
times called Gods, and in which Moses is said to have 
been a God to Aaron, or in which Joseph declares that 
he was in the place of God to his brethren. Christ 
has himself told us, as we have seen, that they were 
called Gods wnto whom the Word of God came ; and 
this " scripture," he farther states, " cannot be broken." 
If, then, the Son is called God, in this place, it must be 
in a similar sense ; because we are told, both before 
and after, that there is one greater than the Son, who 
lias given to him all that he possesses, and that this 
one is as truly his God as he is ours. But some of onr 
ablest and most learned commentators say that this 
verse is not correctly translated. The noun God, in 
the original, is in the nominative case, and not in the 
vocative, as we have translated it. They, therefore, 
think it should read thus: "But unto the Son he 
saith, God is thy throne forever and ever." Doctor 
Adam Clark himself admits that it is in the nomi- 
native case, but contends that it is often used for the 
vocative, and thinks it ought to be so used here. He 
tells us that the learned Doctor Wakefield believes it 
should be read in the nominative, and vindicates this 
translation at large in his "History of Opinions;" 
and that Wiclif, Coverdale, Tindal, and many others, 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 67 

all read it in the nominative, though a number of 
them believe that it should here have the force of the 
vocative. Now, if it is in the nominative, and this 
much, at least, is certainly correct, then, unless we 
translate it in a different case fi'om what it is in the 
original, this passage is no proof at all that the Son 
is God, but is proof directly to the contrary. To say 
that God is thy throne, is very different from saying, 
Thy throne, O God, etc. ; and we have never seen 
any :j;ood reason why Paul should write a noun in 
one case when he intended it to be in another. To 
read it in the nominative certainly agrees better with 
the preceding verses, and with the one also which 
immediately follows. But, while we believe the last 
to 1)0 the correct translation, it is not necessary that 
we insist upon it, because the context most clearly 
ahows that, if he is called God, it must be in 
mii inferior sense, as before stated. The very next 
verse reads: "Thou hast loved righteousness and 
hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath 
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy 
fellows." The kings, and priests, and prophets in 
brael, were consecrated to their several offices by 
anointing, and of the Sou it is here declared that 
they are his fellows. But, while some of these an- 
cient worthies held two of these sacred offices, and 



68 THE TEINITY. 

others but one, and while some of them were, there- 
fore, above others, so the Son, because he held all 
three of these offices, is said to have been anointed 
above them all. But if he was the true God, would 
these men be called his fellows, and could there be 
another greater Deity to conduct him into his office, 
and to give him this higher anointing ? If God thus 
addresses his Son, does it not prove that he is greater 
than his Son ? Could he, in any way, have taught us 
more clearly that he was God, and that his Son was 
not, than by saying : " Therefore God, even thy God, 
hath anointed thee," etc. ? 

The next three verses will be considered in the fol- 
lowing chapter. We, therefore, pass to notice briefly 
the last two : " But to which of the angels said he at 
any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine 
enemies thy footstool ? Are they not all ministering 
spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be 
heirs of salvation V These words are quoted from 
the one hundred and tenth Psalm, and they show 
that, while David and Paul both regarded the Son 
as the most highly exalted of God, they neither of 
them believed that he was God. First, they tell us 
that God has placed his Son at his own right hand ; 
and, Second, that he is to remain there until God has 
subdued all his enemies. He is to occupy this place 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 6*9 

of preeminence and of power until his last foe has 
been destroyed ; and then, as we have seen, he will 
deliver up the kingdom to his Father, and become one 
of his subjects. Surely there is nothing in these 
verses from which any one 'could infer the Deity of 
the Son. It is God who placed him there, and it is 
God who subdues his enemies. 

We have now gone over nearly all of this interesting 
and important chapter, and understand its teachings to 
be : 1st. That God has a Son whom he has appointed 
heir ot all things. 2d. That the Son is the brightness 
of his Father's glory, and the express image of his 
person ; and having finished his work on earth, he was 
placed at the right of the Majesty on high. 3d. That 
he whs made bettor than the angels, and has obtained 
by his inheritance a more excellent name. 4th. He is 
declared to have been begotten of God. 5th. God 
raised him from the dead, and, after his resurrection, 
commanded the angels to worship him. Gth. He not 
only declares that he is a Father to the Son, but that 
he i- also his God; and that his Son is to sit at his 
righl hand until he has subdued his enemies. 

Now, if Paul had said these tilings of the creator 
of all things, what would we have thought? If he had 
laid that the everlasting <><>d was, at a certain time, 
begotten by another; that he was made better than 



70 THE TRINITY. 

the angels, and had a better inheritance, and a more 
excellent name y that he had been appointed heir of all 
things, and had a Father and a God ; that he was not 
himself supreme, but had been appointed to sit on the 
right hand of him who was ; and that after his death 
and resurrection, this greater Deity had told the angels 
to worship him — if he had said these things of God 
the Father, " who is above all," would they have agreed 
with his teachings in other places ? Would they not 
contradict all that the Bible has taught us about our 
Father and our God \ And yet, if these views of 
the Supreme Being appear to us so revolting, they are 
equally so when applied to the Son, if they affirm that 
he is himself that Supreme Being, or even that he is 
equal with him. 

"We notice, next, the passage in Colossians. Of the 
Son of God he there declares : " Who is the image of 
the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. For 
by him were all things created that are in heaven, and 
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they 
be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers. 
All things were made by him and for him, and he is 
before all things, and by him all things consist. And 
he is the head of the body, the church, who is the be- 
ginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things 
he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 71 

Father that in him should all fullness dwell'' (Col. 
1 : 15-19). Trinitarians regard this as the strongest 
evidence which the apostle Paul has furnished in proof 
of the Godhead of the Son, and they do not think that 
he could ever have used such language unless he had be- 
lieved that the Son was truly and supremely divine. We 
think we can show, on the contrary, that he would never 
have used such language if he had believed him to be 
truly divine. In the first place, he tells us that the Son 
is the image of the invisible God, and that he is the 
first-born of every creature. He does not say that he 
ifl God, but that he is God's image ; and, as we have 
before stated, if he is the image, he cannot be the 
original ; if he is the likeness of another, he cannot be 
the one from whom the likeness is taken. The original 
ifi God, and he stamped upon his Son his own image, 
the -line as he did upon Adam — for it is declared that 
he was also created in the image of God. If man was 
made in the image of his maker, and if the child of God 
ie Baid to be renewed in knowledge " after the image of 
him that created him," does this prove that man is 
God I Ami if oot, doee the feet that the Son is said 
to be in this same image, prove thai lie is God? 
There might be many images or like?ie*ses, but there 
am be bnl one original, if there is but one God; and 

If the Sen is n.it th.it original, but is a likeness taken 



73 



THE TRINITY. 



from it, the same as was man, and the same, perhaps T 
as were also the angels ; does not that prove that he 
is not God \ If he was the Supreme Being, he could 
not be his image, but would be that from which all the 
rest were taken. And, further, what is meant by saying 
that he is the " first-born of every creature," and " the 
first-born from the dead ?" Would Paul have said this 
if he believed the Son to be the everliving God? 
Would he have said that the Deity was dead, and that 
he was the first-born from the dead i That this is what 
he means by the last expression, has never, we believe, 
been questioned ; nor do we think that any sane man 
would attempt to deny it. And it does not matter 
what we may think he means by saying that the Son 
is the first-born of every creature, we cannot apply 
these words to that Being who has existed from eter- 
nity. We cannot say that he is the first-born of all 
creatures, any more than we can say that he is the last. 
God is not a " creature," nor was he ever born. He 
never had a beginning, and will never have an end. 

Nor does the apostle say that the Son is the creator 
of all things. What is here meant by creation, as con- 
nected with the Son of God, is not a question to be 
considered at present. In the next chapter, we will 
try to ascertain, if we can, what is meant by this and 
other similar expressions. Whatever it may mean, it 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 73 

does not teach that the Son is the Creator. In He- 
brews, as we have seen, the apostle declares that God 
created by his Son. In Ephesians he uses this lan- 
guage : " And to make all men see what is the fellow- 
ship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the 
world hath been hid in God, who created all things by 
Jesus Christ." In the chapter before us he states that 
by him were created all things, etc. In every place he 
affirms that the Son is the one by or through whom 
this work was done ; and in two of them he expressly 
declares that the being who, through the Son, per- 
formed this work, was God. Then the Son did not 
himself create, but God did by him. We are told that 
" in the beginning God created the heavens and the 
earth," but it is nowhere stated that the Son created 
them ; nor does the Bible teach that he ever created 
anything, but that God did by him, the same as he is 
said to have done a great many other things by him, 
where it is distinctly stated at the same time that he 
was only ;i man. 

The Son " is the head of the body, the church ;" but 
in another place be also declares, that the head of the 
Son. or Christ, is G-od. Then he states, further, that 
he is" the beginning, the Brst-born from the dead, that 
in all things he might have the preeminence." But 
does this look as if 1 1n • apostle thought he was God ? 



74 THE TRINITY. 

Was it not God that raised him from the dead, and 
appointed him head of all things \ And, beside, it is 
stated in the very next verse that the Son occupies this 
place because such is the pleasure of God. " For it 
pleased the Father that in him should all fullness 
dwell." But if he holds this place at the pleasure of 
another, does not that prove that he is not supreme % 
If the Son was himself the Deity, would not all full- 
ness dwell in him, whether it pleased some other one 
or not ? Would he be dependent upon another for his 
place in creation, and the honors which he is to re- 
ceive ? His being the first-born from the dead, and 
having the highest place " above his fellows," no more 
makes him equal with the Great Jehovah, than if he 
had been the lowest of all, and the last that was raised 
from the dead. Once admit that he had a resurrection 
from the dead, and that he holds his present position 
at the pleasure, or by the appointment of another, and 
the question of his supreme divinity must be given up 
forever. He cannot be the everliving and independ- 
ent One, if he was once dead, and is now declared to 
be inferior to and dependent upon another. And yet 
all this, and even more than this, is said of him in this 
very chapter. 

We ought, before closing this part of the evidence, 
perhaps, to notice one passage in Philippians, though 



THE TESTIMOjSTY OF PAUL. 70 

we have already partially considered it more than once. 
It reads: "Let this mind be in you which was also in 
Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought 
it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself 
of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a ser- 
vant, and was made in the likeness of men : and being 
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and 
became obedient unto death, even the death of the 
cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, 
and given him a name which is above every name : 
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under 
the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.'" 
(Phil. 2:5-11.) 

The apostle here certainly teaches this much, at 
least: 1st. That the being he describes became obe- 
dient unto death, even the death of the cross. 2d. 
That God has highly exalted him, and given him a 
name which is above every other. 3d. That while 
every knee bows to him, and every tongue confesses 
that ho is Lord, they do this to the glory of God the 
Father. This much at least is plain, whatever else we 
may think is taught. We know that many learned 
and conscientious men. while they have differed very 
much as to the precise meaning of the sixth verse, 



70 THE TRINITY. 

believe this passage, nevertheless, to teach that the Son 
is truly God. And if we were only to consider this 
one verse by itself, we might be in doubt as to what it 
did mean. But if we take with it that which imme- 
diately follows, and which is a part of the same sen- 
tence, we shall lind that the one who is said to have 
been in the form of God, and who took upon him the 
form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of 
men, that this same one became obedient unto death, 
and was afterward highly exalted of God. It does not 
say that he was God, but that he was in the form of 
God, and that after his deep humiliation and death, 
God gave him a name and a place above every other. 
It was the Father who gave him this place of honor, 
and it is to the glory of the Father that divine honors 
are paid to his Son. But if this highly exalted being 
was once dead, and has received all that he has from 
another, he cannot be the supreme God. If this is not 
true, all of our views of the Deity have been wrong, a^nd 
must be given up. If a being can die, and after that 
be exalted by his Father, and have a name given to 
him, and yet be equal to the one from whom he re- 
ceived these things ; then we have greatly mistaken 
the teachings of the Bible, as to the nature and the 
attributes of the Deity, and may admit that the Son is 
equal with the Father, and that the two are one su- 



THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 77 

preme being. But if our views have been correct, and 
if these things cannot be affirmed of the everli/ving 
One, who is "from everlasting to everlasting"; then 
the Son is not the Deity, but the man in whom the 
Deity dwells. 

There are a few other passages in the writings of 
Paul to which we might call attention, but do not 
deem it necessary. We have now examined that part 
of his evidence upon which Trinitarians rely most, and 
to which, in the discussion of this question, they most 
frequently refer. We have also seen what he has said 
which is unfavorable to their view, and from this 
testimony, as a whole, would draw the following con- 
clusions : 

First, That the only Deity of which the apostle 
speaks is the Father. If there is any other one he has 
certainly failed to tell us. The Son is not, according 
to his teachings, either independent or eternal. In 
these passages where the highest titles are given to 
him, and which Trinitarians regard as most favorable 
to their dew, lie is even there represented as being 
dependenl upon the Father. In Hebrews, in Colos- 
sians, and in Philippians, where it is claimed that his 
supreme divinity is most dearly set forth — in these 
v.tv passages he ie described as having derived his 
eadstence from another, and as having received from 



78 THE TRINITY. 

him all that he possesses. He was begotten, died, 
had a resurrection, is now doing his Father's will, and 
will be subject to him forever. There is not a place 
where the Son is said to be equal with the Father, or 
where he is declared to be independent of him. The 
Father is, everywhere, said to be self-existent and eter- 
nal, but 'the Son never. The Father is not dependent 
upon the Son, but the Son ever was and ever will be 
dependent upon the Father. We therefore conclude, 
that if the Bible clearly reveals that " the Lord our 
God is one Lord," Paul as clearly teaches that that 
one is the Father. 

A second conclusion which we draw from the testi- 
mony of Paul is, that, as the Father is declared to be 
the only supreme and independent God, there is there- 
fore in the Godhead hut one person. He has never 
intimated that there are three; much less that one 
of these is a Son born from eternity. And if there 
are three, the apostle certainly did not know it ; for 
as much as he has written, he has not only failed to 
speak of it, but has said many things which would 
contradict it. From what he has said about the nature 
and character of the Supreme Being, we should con- 
clude that a division of the Godhead into different 
persons would be impossible, and that the doctrine of 
an eternal Sonship is not only a self-contradiction, but 



THE [TESTIMONY OF PAUL. 79 

a most palpable absurdity. In all his epistles he has 
taught that the Deity is one, and cannot be divided. 

A third conclusion, or inference, is, that as the Son 
is dependent upon the Father, and is yet said to be 
one with him ; and as the one was born of a woman, 
while the other is declared to be his Father and his 
God ; therefore the Son is not the Deity, but the 
human nature which the Deity assumed when he 
became incarnate. Indeed, we cannot see, from the 
testimony, how we can possibly come to any other 
eonclusion. The Father is invariably called God, while 
the Son is said to have been born in time, and is 
declared to be a man. Then we conclude that he was 
a ni.iii, and that the Father who dwelt in him was, as- 
he and Paul both declare, his God. And as Adam, 
because he had no earthly father, but came directly 
from the hands of his Maker, is therefore called the 
Bon of God ; so the second Adam, because he had no 
earthly Father, but was begotten by the Deity, is not 
only called tin- Son of God, but also "the only begot- 
ten ..i' the Father." That the Son was a man, that is, 
thai there was in our Lord a perfect human nature is 
not disputed. The Bible everywhere declares it, and 
the rlniivli teaches it. lint whore is the evidence that 
thin- were in Chrisl two sons — the one human, the 
other olivine; the one born in time, the other from 



80 THE TRINITY. 

eternity 2 Did Christ ever reveal this? or has any- 
inspired writer, in either the Old or the New Testa- 
ments ? Saying nothing about how unreasonable and 
how absurd such a proposition would appear, and how 
much it would seem to contradict other teachings of 
the Word ; upon whose authority do we believe it to 
be true? If we were to pause here a moment, we 
might conclude that, in order to be wise above what 
is written, we have admitted into our creeds that 
which came from men uninspired, and which, without 
destroying the unity of God, and, in fact, annihilating 
the very being of God, no sane man ever did or ever 
can believe. That God has a Son, who, though begot- 
ten of him, is yet himself the Supreme Being ; and 
that there is still, beside these, a third person who is 
equal with them, and yet only one Lord — we are glad 
that neither Paul nor any other inspired writer has 
ever taught what we conceive to be so monstrous a 
doctrine. We would sooner believe the teachings of 
the Bible than those of the councils of Nice and Con- 
stantinople ; would receive what God has revealed, 
rather than the opinions of Athanasius, or any other 
mere man. If there was even one passage in which it 
was distinctly stated, that there were united in our 
Lord, not (me Son simply, but two, and that while the 
one was perfect man. the other was perfect Deity; 



THE TESTEMOKY OF PAUL. 81 

strange as this might seem, we should not dispute it. 

But as only one is spoken of, and he is declared to be 

a man, we will accept the testimony, and conclude that 

it means, precisely what it says. 

Still another conclusion, or inference, which we 

draw from the testimony of Paul is, that as the Father 

is God, while the Son is said to have been born of a 

woman, and is called a man ; and as these are in each 

other, and are said to be one in Christ; therefore, in 

him, as the church also teaches, there is perfect God 

and perfect man ; and as the Spirit of the Father is 

also the Spirit of Christ, therefore, in our Lord Jesus 

Christ alone is the divine Trinity of Father and Son 

and Holy Spirit: the Father is the Deity, the Son 

the humanity, and the Holy Ghost the spirit of God 

which dwelt in Christ, and which, from him, is shed 

abroad in the hearts of all believer*. We say that the 

Father is the Deity of our Lord, because he is the 

only divine being who is said to have dwelt in him, 

and because he is the only one there can be, unless we 

admit a plurality of Gods. And we say that the Son 

is the humanity of our Lord, not only because he is 

called a man, but for the further reason that if he is 

not. Christ could not have any human nature at all. 

The Bible does not say that the Father is a man, but 

teaches that he is God; nor does any one claim that 




82 THE TRINITY. 

either the Father or the Holy Spirit are, of themselves, 
iu any sense human. So that if, by the Son, we are 
not to understand the humanity of Christ, we must 
deny that he had any humanity. If the Deity did 
become incarnate, the human which he then assumed, 
and with which he clothed himself, as it were, in order 
to save a fallen world, is that which is called the Son, 
and cannot be any other. 

The apostle has expressed the whole truth in a few 
words when he declares that "God was in Christ 
reconciling the world unto himself;" and again, when 
he states that in Christ " dwelt all the fullness of the 
Godhead bodily;" and still again, that as "the head 
of eveiy man is Christ," so "the head of Christ is 
God." He leaves the Deity undivided, and asserts in 
Christ that fullness of God which has been the joy of 
believers in every age of the Christian church. He 
does not state that one person of the Godhead simply 
dwelt in Christ, but that God was in him — the one 
living God in all his fullness — that he dwelt in his 
Son, and that by him he reconciled the world unto 
himself. He could not state in plainer terms the 
object of the incarnation, and who it was that became 
incarnate, than he has in the first passage just quoted. 
Kor could he have said in any way more clearly that 
the being in whom God dwelt was not himself the 



THE TESTmONT OF PAUL. 83 

Deity, than by telling us that he was his Son, and 
that by his obedience and death this reconciliation was 
effected. 

We conclude, then, finally, that as there is in the 
Godhead but one person, and that one is in Christ, we 
should not, therefore, worship hirn as three, but as one 
Lord. Our affections should not be divided, a part on 
a Deity, or a person of the Godhead, oat of Christ, 
and a part on one who is in Christ ; but should come 
to him as our only King and Saviour; the one in 
whom dwells all the fullness of God, and beside whom 
there neither is nor can be any other. He is our 
Lord and Redeemer, and the only object of divine 
worship either in heaven or in earth. In the Son 
dwells a Deity undivided and indivisible / and through 
him, by God's own appointment, we have access unto 
the Father. And whenever we are willing to renounce 
the doctrine of a Trinity of persons, and that one of 
these, by his sufferings and death, made satisfaction to 
the other, and appeased, as it were, his wrath — two 
dogmas, the second resulting from the first, and 
neither of which have any warrant from the "Word 
of God — whenever we are willing to renounce these, 
and to center our affections upon the one God who 
is in Christ, then of the church it can truly be said: 
" Thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen 
Bpon thee." 



CHAPTER IT. 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 

"VTEXT to Christ and Paul, the most important 
I\l witness is the apostle John. Though he has 
said but little touching this question in comparison 
with Paul, his testimony is yet in some respects of 
even more importance. 

He begins his gospel very much as Moses com- 
mences his account of the creation. The latter informs 
us that u in the beginning God created the heavens 
and the earth ; " while John declares that " in the 
beginning was the Word." Then, as Moses represents 
each act of the creation as having been performed by 
the command or word of God ; so John states that 
by this word " all things were made," and that with- 
out it "was not anything made that was made." 
" God said, Let there be light," is the language of 
Moses, " and there was light." " God said, Let the 
earth bring forth . . . and it was so." And so on 
through the chapter, each act is said to have been per- 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 85 

formed by the word of the Lord. Hence the Psalmist 
declares that " by the word of the Lord were the 
heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath 
of his mouth ; " and again, that " he spake and it was 
done ; he commanded, and it stood fast." Paul states 
that " the worlds were framed by the word of God ; " 
while Peter informs us that " by the word of God the 
heavens were of old," and that they, " by the same 
word, are kept in store," etc. 

It is clear, in all these passages, and in others 
which might be given, that, by the word of the Lord, 
and by what he said, we are to understand what he 
did, or what he had determined to do. As we speak 
of what men say when describing what they do, and 
as the Bible speaks of them in the same way, so does 
it also speak of the acts of the Deity. It tells us what 
he says when revealing to us what he does. And, 
In lire, whatever God has done, whether in the crea- 
tion of the heavens and the earth, or in the creation, 
preservation, and redemption of man, he is said to 
have done it by the word which proceeded out of his 
month. Hi- is rep resented as upholding and con- 
trolling "all things by the word of his power." 
When he speaks, the winds and the seas are silent ; 
tin' >im. the moon, and the stars obey his commands. 

"lie Uttered hi.- voire, tin- e;irt!i melted." "He eoni- 



86 THE TRINITY. 

mandetli the sun, and it riseth not.'" " The pillars of 
heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof." 
So ? too, all that he has done to enlighten man is said 
to be by this same word of truth. God spake to 
Abraham, and to all the ancient worthies. Moses 
heard his voice in the burning t>ush and from the 
mountain top. The word of the Lord came to him, 
and to Joshua, and to Samuel, and to all the prophets. 
And when he had finished speaking unto the fathers, 
by the prophets, he continued to reveal himself by his 
word, which he spake through his Son. 

Xow, when John speaks of the word, does he 
mean the same thing that the other inspired writers 
do, or does he mean something else ? "When he states 
that " the Word was with God," and that " the Word 
was God," and that by it " all things were made," 
does he mean the word of the Lord so frequently 
spoken of by Moses, and David, and Peter, and Paul, 
and all the other writers of the Bible, or is he speak- 
ing of a distinct person in the Godhead, not before 
revealed, and who is himself supremely divine ? This 
is the only question that there can be to determine. 
The prophets unto whom " the word of the Lord 
came" did not understand nor teach that it was a 
person distinct from the one who gave it, or that it 
was one of three persons, having a consciousness and 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 87 

will of its own, and susceptible of thought, and feel- 
ing, and volition. They do not speak of it as a per- 
son in the Godhead, any more than they would speak 
of the words of a man as a person ; but they talk about 
the words of the Lord as they do about the words of 
the king, and mean by both precisely the same thing. 
And that John uses it in the same sense is evident, 
we think, from the following considerations : 

In the first place, he uses the same term, from 
which we should infer that he meant the same thing. 
We have no right to conclude that, by the word, he 
means a person, when all the other writers of the 
Bible use the same term to denote what God was 
doing, or to express that which God had declared. 
And, indeed, we have the most direct evidence, from 
both John and Paul, that the word which dwelt in 
Christ, and which was spoken by him, was the same 
as that which had been spoken by the prophets. 
"The testimony of Jesus," says John, "is the spirit 
of prophecy." While Paul declares that God, who 
" spake in times past unto the fathers, by the 
prophets, lintli in these last days spoken unto us by 
hie S.»n." It was the same God, then, which had 
hern speaking all along: and the word, so called, 
tree that which he had spoken. 

Again, John Dot only uses the same term, but he 



88 THE TRINITY. 

also predicates of it the same thing that do all the 
other inspired writers. He declares that hy it all 
things were created, and if he means to teach that 
this word is a second Deity, or a distinct person from 
the one who gave it, his testimony would conflict with 
that of the other writers of the Bible, and conse- 
quently could not be received. The rest teach that 
bv the word of God we are to understand that which 
God was doing, or that which he had said; and if 
John contradicts their testimony, his statement, stand- 
ing alone, while all the other witnesses agree, would 
have to be rejected as untrue. It cannot be that the 
word of the Lord, by which he is said to have created 
all things, is a person distinct from him, and at the 
same time a word spoken. The words of Jehovah are 
not persons, any more than are the words of man ; 
neither is a person the word simply of his mouth. 
Nor can it be true that God created the heavens and 
the earth by the words which proceeded from him, if 
it be true that this same work was done by a living 
and distinct person who is himself the Supreme Being. 
If by his word we are to understand at one time that 
which he was himself doing, and at another time that 
which his Son was doing ; and if we then assert that 
his Son was God, because by him "he made the 
worlds," then what shall we do with the word which 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 89 

is not God, but is only that which God had done, or 
the word which he had proclaimed ? If they are both 
expressed by the same term, and have both performed 
the same wock, how can they be distinguished ? And 
if they are, in fact, distinct, how can they both be said 
to do the same thing ? If God has created all things 
by his word, and this word is his Son, how could he 
create all things by the word which is not his Son ? 
Or if it be said that he created by both, would not that 
make them both divine? And if we call the one a 
person, must we not also the other ? And, besides this, 
how could the Deity be said to do anything by his 
word of command, when we affirm that it was done 
by a living and distinct person of his own Godhead? 
It the word by which God created is itself indeed the 
Supreme Being, then why should this Deity need the 
word or command of another ? Why should one divine 
person be called God, and another divine person the 
word of God ? If one of these persons is God, and his 
word is also God ; and if he has still another word 
which is not God, and then in one place he declares 
thai ho made all things by his word which is God, and 
in another place by his word which is not God, does 
he not contradict himself, and teach, beside, that which 
would seem perfed nonsense \ 

If John, then, teaches that the Creator made all 



90 THE TRINITY. 

things by his word, and that his word is a person dis- 
tinct from himself, or is even one person ^/"himself, 
while so many other inspired writers declare that it is 
not a distinct person, his testimony would conflict with 
that of the rest, and could not, therefore, be received 
as true. But believing that he wrote by inspiration, 
and that the passages before us are genuine, we con- 
clude that by the word he means God himself as 
engaged in the great work of creation. In other 
words, he means by it precisely the same thing that 
Moses and the prophets have so clearly taught us that 
it does mean. 

We should be led to the same conclusion, again, 
from the language which the apostle uses in describing 
the word. The word, he tells us, was in the beginning, 
and was with God. It is evident, from Gen. 1 : 1, that 
by the word " beginning " we are to understand the 
time when God began to create. And as each act 
of creation is said to have been performed by the word 
which God spake, or the command which he gave, so 
he is represented as beginning to speak and to create 
at one and the same time. Not anything existed until 
God said that it should be, and not a word is he said 
to have spoken until he was ready to commence. The 
first words which he uttered were : "Let there be light" 
and light was. There is no evidence from John, or 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 91 

from any one else, that the word existed, or that the 
Deity had ever spoken, until he was about to begin the 
creation of the heavens and the earth. "In the he-- 
ginning God created the heavens and the earth." " In 
the h, (/inning was the word, and the word was with 
God." If" the word, then, so called, is eternal, so are 
the works of God. If the Deity has always been 
creating, we might say that he had always been speak- 
ing ; but if there was ever a time when nothing 
existed, there was a time when we have no evidence 
that he had ever spoken. For when he first began to 
speak, he at the same time, we are told, began to 
create. It is true that the word is said to have been 
before all things, and so it was, because we are informed 
t hut (rod first sjjake, and -then that creation immedi- 
ately followed. He spake the word, and the work was 
done. Hence Christ, speaking of himself as to the 
word, declares he is "the beginning of the creation of 
God." The God who had spoken the universe into 
existence, was then speaking through him in acts of 
redemption. 

Now, if this is not correct — if John by the word 
does qoI mean the operations of the Deity — why 
does he say that it was in the beginning, and that in 
the beginning it was with God. He admits that it 
was with, and that it proceeded from, thai Being who 



92 THE TRINITY. 

is himself the supreme and eternal Jehovah, and, 
hence, that it could not be a person distinct from him, 
any more tha-n could that which proceeds from the 
mind of man, Avhen in action, be a person distinct from 
the man himself. And again, why does he say that 
all things were made by the word? It is nowhere 
stated in the Bible that the word created anything, 
but that God did by it. So we are told, in three 
places at least, that he created by his spirit. In 
another place the creation is declared to be the work 
of his hands. In others, again, he is represented as 
creating the heavens u by the breath of his mouth." 
Paul declares that God made all things by his Son, 
while Job informs us that " by his spirit he garnished 
the heavens." " When I consider thy heavens," says 
the Psalmist, " the work of thy fingers." 

The Deity is represented as having a body, like 
man, and as working by means of it, the same as the 
soul does by means of the body in which it dwells. He 
has hands with which he works, feet with which he 
walks, and a mouth with which he speaks ; he can see 
and hear, and think and feel, and performs all his labors 
through these bodiry members and organs, the same as 
do men. And hence he is said to have an arm which 
is not shortened that he cannot save, and ears which 
are not heavy that they cannot hear, and eyes with 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 93 

which he surveys his works, and by which he knows 
all that transpires in heaven, and earth, and hell. And 
hence he employs sometimes one mode of expression, 
and sometimes another, when speaking of what he 
does. Elijah and Elisha wrought miracles because 
"his hand " was upon them. Others are said to have 
done such things because his spirit came upon them.- 

But who ever concluded from this that God was 
corporeal — that he had a body and parts, and that all 
these different expressions are to be taken as literally 
true '. And if any of them are to be so taken, must 
they not all be 'i If the Deity has voice and lungs, 
and speaks with his mouth, has he not also eyes and 
ears, and hands and feet, and all the other members of 
the human body 2 And if any one of these is to be 
regarded as a separate and distinct person, because the 
universe is said to have been created by it, must they 
not all be so regarded 2 If the word is a person dis- 
tim-t from the one who spake it, is not the arm of 
Jehovah, also? And if the spirit is still another per- 
son, are not the hands and feet so many more? Did 
not the Lord, with the one, frame the heavens, and, 
with the other, ia it Dot said that "he treadeth the 
waves of the Bea"? And if his voice, and the breath 
Of his month, his mind and heart, his arms, his hands, 
hie feet, ami all the organs of sense, — if all these are 



94 



THE TRINITY. 



to be taken as so many different persons, would we not 
have nearer twenty than three ? 

And, further, the Word of God would, on this sup- 
position, contradict itself from beginning to end. It 
first asserts that the creation was performed by one of 
these persons, and then another, and still another, until 
We would not know which was true, or whether it 
might not all be false. One declares that God created 
by his Son, another by his word, another by his spirit, 
and still another that he created with his hands. 

Now, if the Deity is here speaking after the man- 
ner of men, this is all clear enough ; but if we are to 
take these different expressions as literally true, and 
are to conclude that the word of the Lord, and his 
spirit, and all the bodily members which he is repre- 
sented to have, and by which he is said to create and 
to preserve, — if we are to take these as so many differ- 
ent persons, we have divided the Godhead, not into 
three, but into almost as many as there are different 
parts to the human body ; and have made the Bible, 
beside, a mass of contradictions and absurdities. If 
the word of God is, in fact, a distinct person in the 
Godhead, because by it all things are said to exist; and 
if, for the same reason, we are to conclude that so is 
the spirit, and so are all the bodily members by and 
with which the Deity is said to have performed his 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 95 

works, then we have not only a plurality of Gods, but 
we have one who is supreme, and a large number of 
others who are inferior to him. The one who created 
all things is supreme ; the Deities by whom he created 
are his subordinates. 

By the same process of reasoning, we would be 
compelled to make an equal division of every human 
being. The man works with his mind, his heart, his 
will, and his voice; he sees with his eyes, hears with 
his ears, walks with his feet, and labors with his hands. 
He reveals his thoughts and his desires by the words 
of his mouth. What he is, and what he does, is more 
especially known by what he speaks. It is the man 
that does all this ; though that by which he does it are 
these different members of his body. It is not the eye 
that sees, but the man by it ; neither is it the ear that 
hears, but the man through it ; and so of all the rest. 
It is the mind, the immortal soul, the man, that does 
all things. He is a spirit, and can no more be divided 
than can that Being in whose image he was created. 
So with God. lie has created all things. He alone 
can create, because beside him there is none else ; and 
bis voice, the words of his mouth, his eyes, his arms, 
Bud hands and feet, by which lie is said to see, and 
feel, and walk, and work, — these are not persons in 
him any more than they are in man. God is a spirit, 



Vb THE TRINITY. 

and cannot be anything else ; and even if he was not, 
it would, by no means, follow that he was made up of 
different persons. He would still be one, the same as 
is man — one in spirit, and one in person. 

Now, if the Bible stated that the word created all 
things, we might conclude, with the Trinitarian, that 
it was a distinct person in the Godhead. Or even if it 
declared that all things were made by it, and did not 
teach that they were made by so many other things, 
we might still be led to the same conclusion. But 
when it is said that God created all things, and that he 
is one ; and when we are told that he did this by the 
word which he spake, and by his spirit, and with his 
hands ; when we are told that he upholds all things 
with his mighty arm and by the word of his power — 
that he does all things by the councils of his will, and 
by the words of his mouth, and by the decrees of his 
mind, and the thoughts and desires of his heart ; when 
he is said to work in so many different ways, and by 
so many different means, and then declares in one 
place that he has done all things by this member of 
his body, and in another by that, — the only conclu- 
sion to which we can come is, that he speaks as a man, 
because speaking to men, and that he uses these dif- 
ferent expressions in describing his works the same as 
we would do in describing ours. There is not a place 



THE TESTOIOjST OF JOHN. 97 

in the Bible, as before stated, where it is declared that 
the word created anything. The uniform teachings 
of the Scriptures are that God is the creator of all 
things, and that he performed the work in the dif- 
ferent ways we have already mentioned. Nor have 
we, therefore, any more evidence that his word is a 
distinct person than we have that his mouth is, or 
any other part of the body in which he is represented 
to dwell. 

Having advanced thus far in the argument, we are 
now prepared to understand that part of the testimony 
of Paul which we promised to examine in this chapter. 
He states in Hebrews and in Colossians, as we have 
seen, that God created all things by his Son, and in 
Ephesians that he " created all things by Jesus Christ." 
We have also seen that in another place he ascribes 
thie work to the word of the Lord, and that with this 
last statement agrees the testimony of a large number 
of other inspired writers. We have found other places, 
again, where it is said that the Deity created by his 
Spirit, and by the breath of his mouth, and where the 
creation is declared to be the work of his hands, etc. 

We come now to ask in what way we are to under- 
stand all these different expressions? We have shown 
that it will not do to conclude that they are so many 

differenl persons, because it would make a much larger 

7 



98 THE TKINTTY. 

number than is even claimed by Trinitarians, and would 
also make the Scriptures contradict themselves. If the 
Son is in fact perfect Deity, and that one, too, by whom 
all things were made, and are now upheld, it cannot be 
that this same work was performed by other persons, 
who are as distinct from him as they are from each 
other. Xor can the Word, spoken of by John, if it is 
the second person in the Trinity, be the same word 
that is spoken of by other writers, since it is clear that 
they, by that term, do not mean a person, but simply 
the words spoken, or the acts performed, by the Cre- 
ator. And yet they ascribe to these words of the Lord 
the same power and energy that John does to the Word 
of which he speaks, and declare that by them was per- 
formed the same works. Then, if their statements do 
not conflict, they are all speaking of the great work 
which the Lord our God had done ; and have employed 
these different modes of expression, not for the purpose 
of showing that the Godhead was divided, but as they 
would use similar expressions in speaking of the works 
of man. Just as we speak of the spirit of a man by 
the energy which he displays, and the work which he 
performs, so they speak of the works of the spirit of 
God. And as we speak of a brave general, who is said 
to set his troops in motion, and to control vast armies 
"by his word of command, so the Deity is said to have 






THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 99 

spoken the universe into existence, and to uphold all 
things by the word of his power. Bonaparte, by his 
word, made monarchs tremble, and conquered nations. 
All Europe feared the words that proceeded out of his 
mouth, and was obedient to his commands. Lincoln, 
by his word, emancipated four millions of slaves, while 
Grant, by his word, concentrated our forces around 
Vicksburg and Richmond, disconcerted the plans of 
the confederate armies, and restored peace to our 
country. And as we thus speak of the acts of men, 
so do the Scriptures speak of the acts of God. But 
man is also said to work in other ways than by his word 
and his spirit. That which he is said to do by these is 
frequently declared to be the work of his hands, etc. 
Bo with God. He is said to work by his word, and by 
his spirit, and with his hands and feet, and heart and 
voice. 

Now this word was in Christ, and this word was 
Ghd. It was not a person distinct from God, but was 
( iod himself. That same awful being, who had spoken 
the heavens and the earth into existence, was now 
Speaking to the world tli rough his Son. For centuries 
he had spoken to men through his prophets. But they 
<lid not always have his word with them. They must 
wait tor hours, and even days sometimes, before God 
would speak to them. The spirit of truth did not rest 



100 THE TRINITY. 

upon them constantly, but " came " to them as occasion 
might require. With Christ this was not so. In him 
the Deity became incarnate. The word of the Lord 
did not " come " to him, but dwelt in him. The spirit 
of God was not given to him " by measure," but it 
" abode upon him." Hence John declares that " the 
Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." And as 
he tells us that the Word was God, because it proceeded 
from him, so Paul declares that it was the Son of God, 
because it dwelt in his Son. 

The Deity who had revealed himself in creation, 
and by the inspiration of his prophets, was now making 
a still higher revelation of himself in Christ. And as 
he is said to have made his first revelation in different 
ways, and by different means, so, also, his last. The 
God who created all things, is the one who worked 
in Christ for the salvation of man ; and as he is said to 
have performed his first works by his word, and by his 
spirit, and by the different members of the body which 
he is represented to have, so he employs the same terms 
to denote that by which he worked in his Son. Hence 
Christ speaks of his works as having been performed 
by the " finger of God," and " by the spirit of God," 
and also by the words which he spake. He silenced 
the winds, and calmed the raging sea, by simply com- 
manding them to be still. By his word fevers were 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 101 

rebuked, and evil spirits lied. His voice was heard at 
the grave of Lazarus, and at the ruler's house, and the 
dead came to life. "Wherever he went he could control 
all things, we are told, by the word of his mouth. 
Hence the Centurion said it was not necessary that the 
Saviour should see his sick servant, but simply to speak 
the word and he would be healed. And yet it was not 
the word of Christ, nor his touch, nor his voice, nor any- 
thing else that the man did, or could do, that performed 
these miracles, but it was the Deity that dwelt in him. 
H I can of mine own self do nothing," — " The Father 
that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." 

The Father is the Deity who has been revealed to 
man. Xot God the absolute one, about whom Mr. 
Bushnell speaks in his " God in Christ," and who, as 
lie states, is now, and ever will be, unknown to us; but 
God bo far a> he is known — God so far as he has been 
or can be comprehended by finite beings, — this God 
ie our Father, and the one who has revealed him to us 
Lb hie Son. " No man hath seen God at any time; the 
only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, 
lie hath declared him." iv Neither knoweth any man 
the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the 
Sun will reveal him." This Being is the Lord our 
God, and is absolutely bul one Lord. He has created 
all things; he has redeemed man; he is the God who 



102 THE TRINITY, 

was "in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." 
That by which he is said to have created and redeemed 
is no more a distinct person of himself, than is that by 
which a man is said to work, a person of the man, 
Whatever name is given to it — whether word, spirit, 
mind, heart, or anything else, — it is no more a person 
in Deity, than it would be in us. " There is but one 
God the Father ; " " One God and Father of all," and 
this one dwelt in Christ, and through him revealed 
his word. To him "God giveth not his spirit by 
measure," but in him dwelt in all his fullness. 

There are more than two hundred places in the 
Bible where the word of the Lord is spoken of. Some- 
times it is called the "word of God," and at other 
times " the word of the Lord." Sometimes it is said 
to be the word that " came from," or was spoken by 
him, or the word which had " proceeded from," or had 
"gone out of," his mouth. Sometimes other modes 
of expression are used; but in every instance it is 
clear that the writer means by it the same as when he 
speaks of the words of Moses, or of Samuel, or of any 
other man. So, also, when they speak of the Spirit of 
God, it is evident from the connection that they mean 
the same as when they speak of the spirit of a man. 
And not only so, but they describe what God does by 
his Word and his Spirit, the same as they do what man 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 103 

does by his word and liis spirit. But are the word and 
the spirit of man two different persons ? Do we say 
that there are three persons in one man ? And, again, 
what is the spirit of a man ? Is it not his mind, and 
that which proceeds from it? or, in other words, is it 
not the mind in action — that which it does by means 
of the body in which it dwells, and with which it is 
so mysteriously united I And if so, then what is the 
spirit of God, but the mind of God exerting itself — 
the Deity in action'. 

Does John say that the "Word was God"? So 
Christ teaches that the Spirit is God. "God is a 
Spirit, 1 ' he declares, and the Spirit, therefore, must be 
God. It is not some other person, but is the very 
God himself. And as he is a Spirit, and cannot be 
anything but a Spirit ; so the Spirit is God, and can- 
not possibly be anything but God. And as this Spirit 
dwelt in Christ, and spake and worked through him, 
John, therefore, tells us plainly that it was God. He 
does not mean some other Deity, because he declares 
there is no other; but the same one who had spoken 
in times past by the prophets, and who would now 
reveal himself to the world through his Son Christ 
Jesus. 

I'.ut as we shall discuss this part of the subject 
more rally when we come to speak of the Holy Spirit, 



104 THE TRINITY. 

we will not pursue this last thought any farther at 
present. If any one should not be satisfied with the 
answer we have just given as to what the Spirit is, let 
him call it something else ; it would still be no more 
a person distinct from God, than is the spirit of man a 
distinct person of the man ; and the same is true of his 
word. The word and the spirit by which God worked 
in creation, are the same as that by which he worked 
in his Son. Hence Christ is said to have been " full 
of the Spirit," and to have had within him the word 
which he proclaimed. By God's spirit he cast out 
devils, and by his Word he raised the dead. Shall we 
then conclude that they are two different persons? 
If the Bible teaches that God is a Spirit, so it declares 
that God is light, and that God is love; and as well 
might the last two be called persons of the Deity as 
the first. Then there is the Bible itself, which is 
called the Word of God. Will it not judge us at the 
great day ? Does not Christ say it is spirit, and it is 
life t Is it not said to search our hearts, and to dis- 
cern our thoughts ? and does not Paul declare that the 
gospel is the " power of God unto salvation " ? Surely 
it is spoken of as a living and distinct person, and 
should be so regarded if the rest are. 

In this way we might go on, calling one a person 
here, and another a person there, until we had almost 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 105 

any indefinite number, and would, in fact, have no 
Deity at all. Like the heathen, we would have one 
that we called supreme, and a large number of other 
inferior deities, and might in reality be said to be 
without God in the world or anywhere else. Making 
so many divisions in the Godhead, and calling each 
one the Deity, would be like dividing the human body 
into so many different parts, and calling each one a 
man. And as such a process would take the life of 
the man, so it would also destroy the existence of God, 
and leave the universe without a creator. We, there- 
fore, conclude that God is one, as he himself declares, 
and that his Word and his Spirit are no more different 
and distinct persons than are the word and the spinit 
of man. 

Having explained what we understand by the 
Word, as spoken of in the first chapter of John's 
gospel, there is but little else in his testimony to 
which we shall call attention. He has given us a great 
many interesting and important facts, concerning the 
person and character of the Son, and his relation to 
the Father; but as most of them are also given by 
Christ and Paul, whose testimony we have already 
examined, we do not deem it necessaiy to refer to 
them here again. 

He states the object which he had in writing his 



106 



THE TRINITY. 



gospel in these words : " But these are written that ye 
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, 
and that, believing, ye might have life through his 
name." He declares, as do the Saviour and Paul, that 
the Father is God ; that he is not only our Father and 
our God, but that he is also the God and Father of 
Christ ; that the Son is the light of the world, and the 
life of man ; that he suffered and died, and was raised 
from the dead by the power of God ; that he is now 
our advocate with the Father, and that through him 
we may have salvation from sin, the gift of God's 
spirit, and eternal life in heaven. 

We give a few passages, to show how clearly he 
sets forth these facts, and how perfectly he agrees with 
other writers. " Herein is love, not that we loved 
God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the 
propitiation for our sins." " In this was manifested 
the love of God toward us ; because that God sent his 
only begotten Son into the world, that we might live 
through him." " Whosoever shall confess that Jesus 
is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in 
God." ' " This is the witness of God which he hath 
testified of his Son." " And this is the record, that 
God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his 
Son." 3 Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and 

1 Uohn 4 : 9, 10, 15. * 1 Jo. 5:9, 11. 



THE TESTO10NY OF JOHN. 107 

with his Son Jesus Christ.'" " God is light ... if we 
walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellow- 
ship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ 
his /Son, cleanseth us from all sin." ' " We have an ad- 
vocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." a 
" Grace be with you, mercy and peace from God the 
Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the 
Father." 3 " Grace be unto you, and peace from him 
which is, and which was, and which is to come, and 
from the seven spirits which are before his throne, and 
from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the 
first-begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings 
of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us 
from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings 
and priests unto God and his Father." 4 

From these passages, and others which might be 
given, it is clear that he not only calls the Father God, 
bat that he uses these terms interchangeably, as though 
tliey were entirely synonymous. Our Father is the 
Son's Father, and our God is his Father. The Son of 
God is the Son of the Father. The eternal life which 
God hath given unto us, and which is declared to be 
in hi- Son, 18 the "life which was with the Father, 
and was manifested unto us." The Son hath redeemed 
us unto God and Ms Father, hath made- ns kings and 

' 1 John 1 ::;.:.. 7. »Jo.8:l. » 2 Jo. 1:8. »Rev.l:4-8. 



108 



THE TRINITY. 



priests unto our God, and will make him that over- 
cometh a pillar in the temple of his God. We have 
all then one common Father, and that one is God. 

There is one passage in the first epistle of John, 
which we ought, perhaps, at least to notice. It reads : 
" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these 
three are one (1 John 5 : T). This is the only place in 
his writing, and the only one in the Bible, we think, 
from which we could infer the doctrine of the Trinity. 
Doctor Adam Clark, though a conscientious believer 
in the doctrine itself, does not think the passage is 
genuine. In his notes upon this text, he says : " But 
it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in 
every manuscript of this epistle, written before the in- 
vention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Mont- 
fortii, in Trinity College, Dublin. The others which 
omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. 
It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, ^Ethi- 
opic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Slavonian, etc.; in a word, in 
all the ancient versions, but the Yulgate ; and even of 
this version, many of the most ancient and correct 
manuscripts have it not. It is wanting also in all the 
ancient Greek fathers, and in most even of the Latin." 
A little farther along he states again : " Though a con- 
scientious advocate for the sacred doctrine contained in 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 109 

this disputed text, and which I think expressly enough 
revealed in several other parts of the sacred writings, 
I must own the passage in question stands on a most 
dubious foundation. All the Greek manuscripts (the 
Codex Montfortii alone excepted) omit the passage; so 
do all the ancient versions, the Yulgate excepted ; but 
in many of the ancient manuscripts even of this version 
it is wanting. There is one in the British Museum, of 
the tenth or eleventh century, where it is added by a 
more recent hand, in the margin ; for it is wanting in 
the text." (Clark's Commentaries, vol. 6.) Then he 
goes on to give us the names of some fifty of the most 
celebrated of the Greek and Latin fathers, who have 
never quoted this verse, though many of them were 
writing in defense of the very doctrine which it is 
claimed to teach. Doctor Dodd, Coverdale, and Tin- 
dal. all agree with Doctor Clark. 

This verse " is wanting," says the same writer, " in 
the first edition of Erasmus, A. D. 1516, which is prop- 
erly the editio princejjs of t'he Greek text. It is want- 
ing also in his second edition, 1519, but he added it 
in the third, from the Codex Montfortii. It is wanting 
in the edition of Aldus, Gerbelleus, Cephalseus, etc. 
It is wanting in the German translation of Luther, and 
in all the editions of it published during his lifetime. 
It is inserted in our early English translations, but 



110 THE TRINITY. 

with marks of doubtfulness. In short, it stands on no 
authority sufficient to authenticate any part of a revela- 
tion professing to have come from God." 

So says one of the most learned and conscientious 
commentators of modern times, and with him agree, 
as he has shown, the ablest and most reliable of even 
orthodox writers in every age. One hundred and 
thirteen Greek manuscripts containing the first epistle 
of John, and this verse omitted in one hundred <md 
twelve ! In only one of that vast number was it to be 
found, and that one a manuscript of comparatively 
recent date. ^Neither is it in any of the ancient ver- 
sions, the Vulgate excepted ; and even in the most 
ancient and correct copies of this it is wanting. It is 
not strange, then, that the ancient fathers say so little 
about it, or that so many modern Trinitarians regard 
it as not genuine. 

But even if it is genuine, would it prove the doc- 
trine which is claimed ? If the Word of God is said 
to search the heart, and to discern the thoughts, and is 
that by which we are to be judged, might it not also 
be said to bear record ? Does not Christ expressly de- 
clare (John 12 : 48) that he will judge no man, but 
that the words which he has spoken, the same will 
judge us at the last day ? Does he not say that his 
works are witnesses of him, and that Moses will be 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. Ill 

a witness against his enemies in the great day \ Then 
does this prove that Moses is God, or that the words 
and works of Christ are persons ? And if not, would 
it any more follow that the word and the spirit spoken 
of in this verse are persons, because they are also de- 
clared to be witnesses ? John does not state that they 
are persons, but that they hear record ; and this the 
Bible is declared to do in a number of places. And 
further, it is stated in the very next verse that there 
are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the 
water and the blood ; and if the three in heaven are 
persons because they bear record, so are the three on 
earth. Indeed, one of the witnesses in heaven is also 
declared to be one of the three on earth, and if a 
divine person in the one, it must be in the other. 
This would make five in all: the Father and the word 
in heaven, the water and the blood on earth, and the 
spirit which is common to both. Now, admitting the 
seventh verse to be genuine, what evidence have we 
that the last two witrtesses mentioned in that verse 
Bre persons of the Godhead, any more than we have 
that the last two are, which are mentioned in the 
eighth verse? And what reason have we for believing 
that any of them are persons, any more than we have 
that the words and works of Christ are persons, or a 
great many other things which we have already no- 



112 THE TRINITY. 

ticed? Are they not all spoken of as living and 
intelligent beings, and are they not all declared to be 
witnesses ? 

"We do not believe that the seventh verse was writ- 
ten by John. We have other reasons beside those we 
have mentioned for rejecting it. But even if he did 
write it, we deny that it proves the doctrine of a 
Trinity of persons in one God. We submit to any 
unprejudiced mind, whether the evidence which this 
passage furnishes, in proof that the word and the 
spirit of God are persons, is any stronger than the 
evidence which we have that the word and the spirit 
of man are persons. We deny that it is any stronger 
than the evidence which we have that the words and 
works of Christ are persons, or even the water and 
the blood spoken of in the following verse. And yet 
this one passage, standing, as is admitted, upon "a 
most dubious foundation," and furnishing, even if true, 
so slender a proof of the doctrine claimed — this one 
passage is all that there is in the writings of John 
upon which Trinitarians have to rely, and which many 
of them admit to be the strongest evidence they have 
in the Word of God. The very fact that this verse 
has been received into our translation, and has been 
brought forward with so much zeal and earnestness, 
as though everything depended upon it, is a proof that 



THE TESTIMONY OF JOHN. 113 

Trinitarians feel how little foundation they have from 
Scripture for their doctrine, and how important it is 
that they use whatever they may find to the best pos- 
sible advantage. If we were to reject as untrue more 
than twenty different passages which declare that God 
is one, and that he is the Father, there would still be 
left an amount of Scripture testimony sufficient to 
prove it beyond the possibility of a doubt. There 
would be numerous other places where the same great 
truth is set forth, and in language, too, so plain that 
no one could misunderstand it. But is this true with 
the doctrine of the Trinitarian ? Is there a solitary 
place where it is declared that there are three persons, 
each one of whom is God ? Does John state, even in 
this disputed text, that the three who bear record in 
heaven are persons, or is there anything in the lan- 
guage used from which we must infer that he meant 
to teach this doctrine ? And yet this is the only place 
in the Bible where the word three is mentioned as in 
any way connected with Deity, so that we could pos- 
sibly infer from it that such a doctrine was implied. 

We conclude, then, that the testimony of John is 
imt sufficient to prove a Trinity of Gods, or, what 
imounts to the same thing, a Trinity of persons, each 
aneofwhom is singly a perfect and entire Deify. We 
have seen all that he has said which is regarded as 



114 THE TRINITY. 

favorable to this view. We have found that he does 
not anywhere speak of a Son begotten from eternity, 
nor of a Godhead in which are three persons. On the 
contrary, we have found that he speaks of God as one, 
and expressly declares that one to be the Father. 
This one Supreme Being, he tells us, is a God of 
infinite compassion, and has provided life and salva- 
tion for every member of the human family. The 
love of God our Father, and eternal life through Jesus 
Christ his Son, are the two leading thoughts in all his 
writings. " Behold what manner of love the Father 
hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the 
sons of God." " This is the record, that God hath 
given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." 



CHAPTEE V. 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 
SCRIPTUKES. 

WE have examined the testimony of the most 
important witness — the Lord Jesus Christ. 
We have also considered the testimony of the two next 
most important — Paul and John. In comparison with 
the last two, the other writers of the New Testament 
have said but little which bears directly upon this ques- 
tion. We do not know of anything in either the 
epistles of Peter, or James, or Jude, which is regarded 
as specially favorable to the views of the Trinitarian, 
though there are a number of places in which they 
certainly teach that such views cannot be correct. In 
the first three gospels, the most that we have upon 
this subject is the testimony of Christ himself. What 
little these writers have given, as their own separate 
testimony, will be considered when we come to speak 
of the only-begotten Son, and also in the chapter on 
the Holy Spirit. The three witnesses already exam- 



116 THE TRINITY. 

ined, then, are the ones who have said most upon this 
subject, and it is to their evidence that Trinitarians 
especially refer when discussing it. So far as the New 
Testament is concerned, at least, theue is but little else 
upon which they rely. 

We, therefore, pass to consider the evidence which 
is furnished in the Old Testament Scriptures. We will 
try to ascertain whether there is anything in their 
teachings which would lead us to believe that God had 
a Son who was begotten from eternity, or that in the 
Godhead there are three persons. 

We begin by calling attention to the fact that they 
declare God to be one. Their uniform testimony is 
this : " The Lord our God is one Lord." ' " Thou art 
the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the 
earth." a " Thou art God alone." 3 " Thou whose name 
.alone is Jehovah." 4 " Is there a God beside me? yea, 
there is no God ; I know not any." " "I am God, 
and there is none else." e " Before me there was no 
God formed, neither shall there be after me." 7 " Beside 
me there is no God." 8 " There is no God else beside 
me." 9 

In this way do they all speak, and never in any 
other. And if in this one Deity there are three per- 
sons, or if he has a Son who is eternal, they have never 

1 Deut. 6:4. 2 2 Kin?s 19 : 15. 3 Ps. 86 : 10. 4 Ps. 83 : 18. s lea. 44 : 8. 
• Isa. 45 : 22. » Isa. 43 : 10. 8 Isa. 44 : 6. » Isa. 45 : 21. 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 117 

informed us. If such a doctrine is true, they certainly 
did not know it, because they speak of his unity in 
such a way as clearly shows that they did not believe 
there was in it a Trinity. 

But they teach, further, that this one God is our 
Saviour and Redeemer, and that he is the one who 
would become incarnate, and who should be called the 
Holy One of Israel. The one Jehovah, who created 
the heavens, is the one, they declare, who would also 
redeem man, and beside whom there is no Saviour. 
He was to dwell in Christ, and was not, according to 
their teachings, the Son of God, but was to be the 
everlasting Jehovah himself; and as the settlement of 
this question is that upon which everything else de- 
pends, we will give the testimony somewhat at length. 
-I will help thee, saith the Lord, and thy Redeemer, 
the Holy One of Israel." ..." For thy maker is thine 
husband; the Lord of Hosts is his name, and thy Re- 
deemer, the Holy One of Israel. The God of the 
whole earth shall he be called." ' " God was their rock, 
and the high God their Redeemer." 2 "Thus saith the 
Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." " Thus 
.siitli tlir Lord, the king ,,f Israel, and his Redeemer, 
the hi.nl of II<»ts: I ;im the first, and I am the hist, 
ami heside me then: is m> God." " Thus saith the Lord, 



118 THE TKINITY. 

thy Redeemer ... I am the Lord that maketh all 
things." ' " As for our Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts is 
his name, the Holy One of Israel." " I, the Lord, am 
thy Saviour, and thy Redeemer, the mighty one of 
Jacob." " Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer, 
thy name is from everlasting." " And the Redeemer 
shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from 
transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord." * " Their Re- 
deemer is strong, the Lord of Hosts is his name."' 
" For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, 
thy Saviour." " I, even I, am the Lord, and beside 
me there is no Saviour." " Verily, thou art a God that 
hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." " There 
is no God else beside me ; a just God, and a Saviour; 
there is none beside me. . . . For I am God, and there 
is none else." 4 " Yet I am the Lord thy God. . . . 
There is no Saviour beside me." * " Let Israel hope in 
the Lord [Jehovah] ; for with the Lord [Jehovah] there 
is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. And 
he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities." 8 " Rut 
with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, 
saith the Lord [Jehovah] thy Redeemer." 7 " Sing and 
rejoice, O daughter of Zion ; for, lo, I come, and I will 
dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord [Jehovah]. 

> Isa. 43 : 14 ; 44 : 6, 34. 2 Isa. 47 : 4 : 49 : 26 ; 63 : 16 ; 59 : 20. 3 Jer. 50 : 34 
* Isa. 43 : 3, 11 ; 45 : 15, 21, 22. 6 Hos. 13 : 4. • Ps. 130 : 7, 8. ' Isa. 54 : 8. 






TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 119 

And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that 
day, and shall be my people." ' " Behold the days come, 
saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous 
branch. . . . And this is his name whereby he shall 
be called, The Lord [Jehovah] our Righteousness." 3 
"It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we 
have waited for him and he will save us ; this is the 
Lord [Jehovah], we have waited for him, we will be 
glad and rejoice in his salvation." 3 " The voice of him 
that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the 
Lord [Jehovah] ; make straight in the desert a highway 
for our God." 4 

" For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is 
given : . . . and his name shall be called Wonderful, 
Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, 
.the Prince of Peace." 6 

The Deity who was to dwell in Christ, then, was 
in.t ( rod's Son, but was God himself. He is not called 
the eternal Son, but is declared to be the everlasting 
Father. The one God who made the heavens was to 
become tin- Redeemer of man, and is our only Saviour. 
In this way, in more than a score of places, it is most 
Solemnly declared that the Jehovah of the Old Testa- 
ment, is to be the Lord and Redeemer of the New, 
and that beside him there is none else. Then doea 

1 Zech. a : id. 11. " .i«-r. 98 : r,. 6. i tea. SS : 9. * Isa. 40 : 3. » I»u. !) : 6. 



120 THE TRINITY. 

not this settle the question forever ? Can we say that 
it was only one person of the Deity that became incar- 
nate, when these Scriptures teach that it was the Deity 
entire f and can we say that there are three, when they 
*peak of but one, and assert so many times that there 
is no other ? And besides, how dare we say that the 
divinity of Christ is God the Son, when they, in so 
many words, declare that it was the Father. The 
statement made by Isaiah, in the last passage we 
quoted, would completely overthrow the doctrine of 
the Trinitarian, if there were no others. That the 
prophet there refers to the Lord Jesus Christ is ad- 
mitted by all. Then why does he say that he shall be 
called the "Mighty God, the Everlasting Father"? 
If the Deity in Christ was the eternal Son, why does 
the prophet not say so? or if he was mistaken, why 
has not some other inspired writer contradicted him ? 
Why is it that no one of them has ever said that God 
had a Son, who existed from eternity, and that he is 
the one who became incarnate? And since Isaiah 
tells us that it is the Father, and that he is our only 
Saviour ; and since the other writers of the Bible have 
never contradicted his statement, but have said so 
much to corroborate its truth — are we not bound to 
accept his testimony, and to believe the Word of God, 
rather than the opinions of man ? 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 121 

We ask the reader if he has ever seen stronger 
testimony brought forward to prove any doctrine of 
the Bible, than we have just given in the question 
before us. The passages are not few in number, but 
are numerous ; neither is the language obscure, but 
clear and positive. God is our Father, and our Re- 
deemer, the Holy One of Israel, our Saviour. He is 
the Redeemer who was to come to Zion, and should 
dwell in the midst of his people ; the one of whom it 
should be said in that day, " Lo, this is our God." The 
one for whom a highway should be prepared in the 
desert, and the messenger of the New Covenant, who 
should suddenly make his appearance, and who should 
be called Jehovah our Righteousness. Beside him 
there is none else. 

Doctor Richard Watson has given us, in his Insti- 
tutes, some very fine arguments in proof of the divinity 
of Christ. He shows very conclusively that the Deity 
in him was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and 
tli.it divine titles and divine attributes are ascribed to 
him. etc. In doing this he has demonstrated that the 
God spoken of by the prophets, and the God who was 
in ( !hrist, are not two different and distinct per.sons, as 
In- claims them to be;, but are one and the same iden- 
tical Being. For if he is indeed Jehovah, as this 

writer mi clearly proves that he is, what can he more 



122 THE TEINITY. 

certain than that he is not his Son ? and that if he is 
the same Jehovah, he cannot be some other one ? If 
there is but one, and he dwelt in Christ, and is declared 
to be the Lord God, our only Saviour and Redeemer, 
can there be another ? 

Mr. TTatson tells us that the Jehovah who appeared 
in the form of an angel to Abraham, and to Moses, 
and to others, and who, he says, was the same person 
that afterward made his appearance in the flesh — 
that this person was not the Father. He thinks he 
was most certainly God. and was the one who became 
the Saviour of the world, and yet he undertakes to 
show that he could not be the Father, and, therefore, 
concludes that he must have been God the Son. But 
with due deference to his good judgment, and respect 
for his honest opinions, let us look at the facts. "What 
do the Scriptures most positively teach ? Isaiah de- 
clares that this same Jehovah is our Father and our 
Redeemer. " Thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Re- 
deemer ; thy name is from everlasting," — " But now, 
O Lord, thou art our Father." ] — " Doubtless thou art 
our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us." — 
"He shall be called . . . the everlasting Father '." In 
three different places he thus declares that God is onr 
Father, and in two of them he states that he is also 
our Saviour. 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 123 

The Psalmist declares that God is his Father, and 
the rock of his salvation (Ps. 89 : 26). He also states 
that the same one is our Redeemer. God is called 
a Father to Solomon (2 Sam. 7:14). In 1 Chron. 
29 : 10, we are told that the Lord God of Israel, the 
God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob — the one 
who was with his people, and directed them in all 
their journeys — that this one is the "Lord God of 
Israel, our Father, forever and ever." Jeremiah de- 
clares (31 : 9) that the same one is a Father to Israel ; 
while Malachi states (2 : 10) that one God has created 
us, and that he is our Father. The same Jehovah that 
revealed himself to his ancient people, through his 
angel, and who is said to have revealed himself, after- 
wards, through his Son, is in a number of other places 
called our Father, but in no one place is he ever called 
God the Son. 

Now, in the face of all this testimony, what do the 
opinions of any man amount to \ If the Redeemer of 
Israel, and the Saviour of the world is God the Son, 
wlnrr is the evidence? If he is the Son, why is he 
called the Father \ If there is but one, and he is our 
Bong and Redeemer, how can we conclude that there 
are two? And if the, one who has redeemed us is 
declared to be our Father, how can wo possibly say 
that it was hi- Son \ Did Christ ever teach that the 



124 THE TKINITY. 

Son of God was our Father \ or has anyone ever 
claimed that he sustained to us that relation ? And if 
not, then, shall we insist, contrary to these plain teach- 
ings of the Word of God, that the Deity who redeemed 
us is the Son ? or shall we conclude, with the Bible, 
that the God who redeemed us is one, and that one is 
our Father \ 

There are other passages in the Old Testament, 
where this same truth is very clearly set forth, and to 
which we might refer if it was necessary, but as we 
deem that which we have already given amply suffi- 
cient, and as we especially desire to notice any testi- 
mony which there may seem to be on the opposite 
side, we will pass over these, and proceed to examine 
some passages which are regarded as favorable to the 
doctrine of the Trinitarian. 

We state, in advance, that there is not a place 
vdiere they teach that there are three divine persons, 
or a single one where we think such a doctrine could 
even be inferred. But as there are great and good men 
who believe that there are places where this doctrine, 
if not expressed, is, at least, very clearly implied ; and 
as it is a matter of very great importance, that, on such 
a question, we should ascertain, if possible, the truth, 
we will therefore call attention to the very passages 
upon which they most rely. 



TESTIMOinT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 125 

The Hebrew names of God have in several cases, 
we are told, plural forms. This is the first argument 
that is usually brought forward to prove a Trinity. 
One of the names of the Supreme Being, at least, is 
said to be in the plural number very frequently, though 
it is the nominative case to a verb singular. The first 
verse in the Bible, Hebrew scholars tell us, should read 
thus : " In the beginning Gods created the heavens.and 
the earth." The word Elohim (God) is plural, while 
the word bara (he created) is singular. In other places 
the name of the Deity is singular, but is joined to a 
verb plural ; while in a much larger number of places, 
both the noun and the verb are singular. 

But if the name of Jehovah is sometimes plural, 
why is it not always so ? and when it is in the plural 
number, why is not the verb plural also? Why do 
we have a plural noun joined to a verb singular, and 
then a verb plural agreeing with a noun singular, and 
then numerous passages, again, where both are singu- 
lar ? If the noun and the verb are never both plural, 
and if there are more places where they are both sin- 
gular, than there are places where either of them are 
plural — what does this argument amount to? If the 
Word Jehovah is singular in form, while the word 
which we translate God is sometimes plural, which 
shall we believe is true? Shall we conclude that there 



126 THE TRINITY. 

is only one Supreme Being, or that there are more than 
one? This is the only question there is left us to 
determine, for if there is any force whatever in this 
argument, it proves the very thing which the Trinita- 
rian denies, viz. : that there exists a plurality of Gods. 
It should read, they say, that " Gods created," not 
persons ; and whether there is one person or three, we 
have not the slightest evidence from these different 
names of Deity. It is not the number of persons in 
one Godhead that is spoken of, but the number of 
Gods who were engaged in the work of creation. 
Neither would it prove that there are only three 
Deities, for if the noun is in fact plural, and if we must 
conclude from it that there is a plurality, it would no 
more follow that the number is three, than that it is 
thirty. 

The only question, then, is, whether we have one 
Jehovah or more than one ; whether the Lord our God 
is one Lord, or whether he is not. If we take the 
answer which God himself has given, we shall con- 
clude that there is absolutely but one ; while if we 
take the plural form of some of the appellations that 
are given to him, with the construction which men 
have put upon them, and the inferences which they 
have drawn from them, we may conclude there are 
any number whatever. 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 127 

And, beside, is it not strange, if there is in these 
names of Deity any evidence of a Trinity, that the 
Hebrews themselves did not believe in it ? Certainly 
they were more familiar with their own language than 
we can possibly be. It was not only, then, a living 
language, but was their own native tongue. It was 
that which they spake and wrote, and of which they 
had a more perfect knowledge, than any other people 
could have. Then why is it that they neither be- 
lieved in a plurality of persons, or of Deities ? Why is 
it that they never even thought that such a thing could 
be possible, but taught so clearly that there is only 
one, and that there could be no other ? If the names 
of Jehovah did not shake their belief in one Supreme 
Being, should it disturb us? If the many solemn 
declarations which God made as to his absolute unity 
were sufficient to satisfy them — though surrounded 
by nations who believed in and worshiped numberless 
Deities, — should it not satisfy us? And if the Trini- 
tarian replies that he does not question the unity of 
God, then he has himself admitted that there is no 
validity in his own argument; for this is the only 
quest ion that is here involved. It is not whether there 
are three persons in one Deity — this does in no way 
BQter into the question, because not one word is said 
about it ; but the question is whether God or Gods 



125 THE TRINITY. 

created the heavens — whether there is one, or whether 
there are many — this is the important and the only 
question, and to this the uniform answer is — " Jeho- 
vah our God is one Jehovah. 1 ' 

But there are also other plural forms of speech, in 
connection with Deity, which are thought to be evi- 
dences of a Trinity. " God said. Let us make man." 
"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become 
like one of us." " And the Lord said. Let us go 
down." 

It is thought that such expressions, if they do not 
prove a Trinity, are at least very strong evidences of a 
plurality. But if this is true, it proves again the very 
thing which the Trinitarian denies. It clearly shows, 
if anything, a pluralit}^, not of persons, but of Gods. 
The Deity, let it be remembered, is the person speak- 
ing. He said, " Let us make man," etc., and if those 
to whom he spoke are also divine beings, it simply 
proves that there are more than one. It is no evidence 
that there are three persons in one Deity, or that there 
are only three Deities, but that there is one who was 
the speaker, and others to whom he was speaking. It 
is the Deity entire who is here talking ; not the one 
who is supposed to be the first person in the Trinity, 
or the Son, who is called the second, but it was God 
who spake — that awful Being who stretched out the 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 129 

heavens, and by whose word all things came into ex- 
istence — he is the one who said this, and if he was 
not speaking to himself, we must either admit that 
there is more than one Supreme Being, or else con- 
clude that those he addressed were created beings. In 
any event, there is nothing in these expressions from 
which we could possibly infer the doctrine of the 
Trinity. It does not touch the question of the num- 
ber of persons in the Godhead, but the question as 
to the number of Gods there are in existence; and 
viewed even from this standpoint, it has but little 
weight if any whatever. 

"We see nothing very unreasonable in supposing 
that the Deity is here speaking of himself, as is com- 
mon with men when speaking of themselves ; that as 
it is common and proper for a man when speaking or 
writing to say, " We will call attention to this point 
next," or " Let us now examine such and such evi- 
dence;" so God, with equal propriety, might use 
similar forms of expression when speaking of his 
works. And, indeed, there is scarcely ever a discourse 
delivered, or a book written, in which we have not 
much stronger evidence that there is a Trinity of per- 
sons in man, than we have from the Bible that there 
is a Trinity in God. 

Neither is there anything unreasonable, again, in 



130 THE TRINITY. 

supposing that the Creator was here speaking to angels. 
It is certain that they have assisted him in many of 
the works of his hands, and in publishing some of the 
most wonderful revelations of his grace and truth. 
They are all declared to be " ministering spirits sent 
forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salva- 
tion." Long before man was created, when the morn- 
ing stars sang together, they were the Sons of God 
who shouted for joy. In all the dispensations of God's 
providence, and in all the revelations which he made 
to his ancient people, they were constantly employed, 
and took the deepest interest. When the star of 
Bethlehem arose, and was shining in its beauty and 
brilliancy about the. only begotten Son of God, they 
were crowding in multitudes around the scene, and 
exclaiming, "Glory to God in the highest, and on 
earth peace, good will toward men." They were pres- 
ent with our Lord in the hour of his deepest and 
severest Buffering; were with him at the time of 
his resurrection from the dead, and of his ascension 
into heaven, and assisted in all that was afterward 
done in spreading a knowledge of his salvation over 
the world. That they were present, then, at the 
creation of man, is not only probable, but almost cer- 
tain : and that they may have been addressed 
language such as the above, is therefore by no mea: 
unreasonable. 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 131 

And yet we do not insist that any one shall accept 
either of these explanations if he can possibly find 
any better. If neither of them should be satisfactory 
to the Trinitarian, let him tell who it was the Deity 
did speak to. It is certain that if God addressed any 
one at all beside himself, the persons so addressed were 
not divine beings ; because the only Supremely Divine 
Being in existence is the one who was speaking. If 
we are honest in saying that we believe in only one 
Deity, let us explain these passages as best we can, 
but let us never attempt to draw a conclusion from 
them which does not follow, and which could not be 
drawn by any kind of fair construction that we can 
possibly put upon them. 

If the Hebrew names of Deity are sometimes 
singular and sometimes plural, the truth is that we 
could not infer from this fact anything whatever. We 
should know that one or the other was not correct, and 
should have to decide from the general teachings of the 
Scriptures which one was true. If we were in doubt 
whether there was one, or more than one, we should 
have to ask ourselves, Which dues the Deity himself 
say is correct? Does he teach that there is one Su- 
preme Being, or more than one? Does he answer this 
in language which cannot be misunderstood, or has he 
left it doubtful '. If there are a few places where the 



132 THE TKQTCTY. 

name is plural, there are a great many more where it 
is singular. If, in a very few places, we have the pro- 
nouns us and they, there are numberless cases where 
we have the singular pronouns I, thou and he. God, 
almost invariably, speaks of himself in the singular 
number; and, in the same way, do all the inspired 
writers speak of him. And, lest this might not be 'suf- 
ficient to convince us that there is but one, he has 
most positively and solemnly declared it through- 
out every part of his Word. He has not only said 
that it is so, but demands that we shall believe it. He 
has laid it down in the first and great commandment, 
as a truth which his people are to acknowledge forever. 

Shall we, then, accept it as true ? Shall we con- 
clude — for this is the only question — that there is 
one, or that there are many? If we believe, in our 
hearts, what we confess with our lips, the question is 
settled ; if we do not, then that in which we are bound 
to believe, is, not a Trinity of persons, but a plurality 
of Gods. 

The form of benediction used by the Jewish priests 
in blessing Israel, is also thought to be another evidence 
of the Trinity. It is given in Numbers 6 : 24-27 — 

" Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee : 
Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto 

thee : 
Jehovah lift his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace." 






TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 133 

When men with the learning and the ability of 
Mr. Watson, and others, are compelled to rely upon 
such evidence as this, to prove their doctrine, it cer- 
tainly shows, at least, how sensible they are that they 
must use whatever Scripture they can find, in any 
way favorable to their view, to the best possible ad- 
vantage. But is there here any evidence at all of the 
doctrine claimed ? It is true that the word Jehovah is 
mentioned three times ; but did Mr. Watson believe 
there were three Jehovah s ? lie has told us before that 
there was only one, and has most clearly proven it 
from the Scriptures. Then, what does he seek to do ? 
Surely, not to prove that there were three persons, and 
only one God. This question has as little to do with 
the passage before us, as it has with every other one 
that we have considered. It is' not even mentioned, 
nor have we the slightest evidence that such a thought 
ever entered the mind of the writer. If the Jehovah 
mentioned in each one of these sentences is a different 
person from those mentioned in the other two, it 
simply proves that we have three Supreme Beings, and 
have been mistaken m thinking there was but one. 
I'.ut there is not here any proof even of this. When 
tin: Lord revealed unto Moses his glory; when he 
passed before him and proclaimed the name of "the 
Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long- 



134 THE TRINITY. 

suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth ; keep- 
ing mercy for thousands, and forgiving iniquity and 
transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear 
the guilty;'' — have we not here evidence of a plurality 
equally as clear as in the Jewish benediction ? Does 
not the Deity here declare that he is Jehovah, the 
mighty God, the merciful Being, the God who is 
gracious, and l<ong-suffering, and infinite in goodness 
and justice and truth t Now, if, in the one place, we 
have evidence of three different persons or Deities, 
have we not as good evidence, in the other, of at least 
ten or eleven ? If the Lord blesses, and keeps, and 
illuminates, and gives peace, in the first, is he not said 
to do even more than this in the last? Then, why 
should we conclude that we have given us, in the one, 
the acts of three different Jehovahs, and, in the other, 
the different attributes of the same Jehovah ( The 
truth is that we have no evidence of more than one 
Deity in either case, much less of the doctrine of the 
Trinity. 

But we pass from this to consider next the cele- 
brated vision of Isaiah, which is regarded by Trinita- 
rians as another proof of their doctrine. The prophet 
states that he saw the Lord seated upon a throne, and 
that his train filled the temple. Above it were sera- 
phim, each having six wings. One of these cried to the 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 135 



other, saying, " Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts : 
he whole earth is full of his glory." It is thought 



: 

that, because the seraphim repeated the word holy 
three times, that they were addressing three equally 
divine persons, and that the use of the pronoun us 
afterward, together with the place where this scene 
transpired, makes the proof still stronger. But if there 
is any evidence here of a Trinity, we have never been 
able to see it. It certainly seems to us that, if the 
seraphim addressed three divine persons, instead of 
reading " Holy is the Lord of hosts," it should read, 
" Holy are the Lords of hosts ;" and that, instead of 
saying, "the whole earth is full of his glory," it 
should read, " the whole earth is full of their glory." 
If the number is plural, we cannot see why both the 
pronoun and the verb should be singular. We should 
have a right to claim that one or the other must, at 
least, be plural, on the very ground that is taken by 
Trinitarians themselves, in the passages we have just 
gone over. 

But, aside from this, we have evidence, conclusive, 
that the number addressed was not three, but one, and 
will give Mr. Watson's own argument to prove it. He 
states that in the phrase, "the Lord of Hosts," all 
admit that the Father is included. He next shows 
from John's gospel (12:41), that Christ, as to his di- 



136 



THE TRINITY. 



vinity, was also present. Then he proves very clearly 
from Paul (Acts 28 : 25), that this same Lord of Hosts 
was the Holy Ghost : u Well spake the Holy Ghost, by 
Esaias the prophet, unto our fathers, saying, Go unto 
this people and say, Hearing ye shall hear and shall not 
understand, and seeing ye shall see and not perceive." 
; ' These words," says Mr. Watson, " quoted from Isaiah, 
the apostle Paul declares to have been spoken by the 
Holy Ghost, and Isaiah declares them to have been 
spoken on this very occasion by the Lord of Hosts." 
(Watson's Institutes, vol. 1, p. 471.) We admit every 
word of it. P>ut what does this prove? — that they 
were different persons, or one and the same ? If the 
one who spake to Isaiah is the Lord of Hosts, and if 
the same one is declared by Paul to be the Holy Ghost, 
then there cannot be any larger number of persons in the 
one than there is in the other. If in the one spoken 
of by the prophet there are three, there must also be in 
the one spoken of by Paul — three persons in the Lord 
of Hosts, and three persons in the Holy Ghost. Then 
if the Deity in Christ was also present, as is claimed, 
and as we admit, and is a person distinct from the 
Father, who is also admitted to be present, and if both 
these are persons as distinct from the Holy Ghost 
they are from each other, how many persons would 
that make in all ? Shall we say Jive, or nine? But if 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAJNtENT. 137 

the Lord of Hosts and the Holy Ghost are declared to 
be one and the same Being, and if God the Father and 
the God in Christ are not the same but different persons 
jrom the Holy Ghost, then neither of the first two 
could be present. But it is admitted that the Father 
was present, and also the Deity in Christ, and, beside 
this, the Scriptures teach it. "What have we, then, but 
the most conclusive evidence that there is but one God, 
and that in the Godhead there is but one person. All 
the prophets declare that the " Lord of Hosts " is our 
Father and our Saviour. John declares that this same 
person is our Lord Jesus Christ; while Paul testifies 
that he was the Holy Ghost. But if the Deity in 
Christ is our Father, he cannot be his Son; neither 
can the Holy Ghost, if he is declared to be the Lord 
of Hosts, be a person distinct from him. And, hence, 
while Trinitarians have proven, by these passages, the 
Deity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, they have, 
at the same time, proven that their views of the 
Trinity are not correct. A stronger argument to prove 
that there is but one person could not be given. 

Those who have been taught to believe in three 
persons, and who have never examined the evidence 
which there is to sustain such a view, will certainly be 
Surprised when we tell them that we have now noticed 
the principal arguments that are usually brought for- 



138 THE TRINITY. 

ward from the Old Testament in proof of this doctrine. 
There are a few other passages which are sometimes 
referred to, but those we have just considered are 
regarded as the most important. 

The arguments of Mr. Watson, for the divinity of 
Christ, are as fine as we have seen anywhere. He 
has clearly shown that there was in him the divine 
nature as well as the human. But, in reading, we 
found that while he had said so much upon this sub- 
ject, he had said but little in direct proof of the 
Trinity. We found, afterward, that other writers had 
pursued about the same course, arguing the Deity of 
our Lord at great length, as if upon this everything 
else depended. One passage after another would be 
brought forward as an evidence of this important doc- 
trine, together with the opinions of the great and good 
of every age, and yet but very little was said to prove 
that the Deity in Christ was a person distinct from the 
one whom they declared to be his Father. Believing, 
as they did, that there were three, and having been 
taught that a denial of the Trinity involved a denial of 
Christ's divinity, they directed all their energies to the 
proof of this last point, as though upon it every other 
question rested. 

Still, it seemed strange, at first, that a doctrine so 
incomprehensible as that of a Trinity in Unity, and 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 139 

which they admitted could not be believed except on 
the authority of God's Word — why a doctrine which 
appeared so unreasonable, should not be shown to be 
very Scriptural, at least, and why our standard writers 
did not undertake to prove this as the first and most 
important question. Why this was so we could not at 
first understand. But when we came to examine the 
teachings of the Bible on this subject for ourselves, we 
found the reason why more and better testimony had 
not been given, was because it could not he had, and 
that all the evidence there was had been used to the 
very best advantage. We found that God said nothing 
about the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, or of 
a Trinity of persons united in one Godhead from eter- 
nity, but that he had most clearly and uniformly con- 
tradicted it throughout every part of his revelation. 
We found a few passages which were regarded as 
favorable to such a doctrine, while the great mass of 
the testimony, to which Trinitarians had scarcely ever 
even alluded, most clearly showed that it could not be 
true. 

Ami now, having examined this evidence; having 
noticed the strongest that there is in the Old Testa- 
ment, both for and against this doctrine — what con- 
clu-inii shall we draw from it as a whole? We have 
seen that the prophets speak of but one God, and that 



140 THE TRINITY. 

they call him our Father ; that this one Jehovah, they 
declare, will become incarnate, and that he is our 
Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel ; that he is not only 
our Lord and King, but that he is our only Saviour ; 
that beside him there neither is nor can be any other ; 
that we are not simply taught this in a few places, but 
in many ; that it is the uniform teaching of all these 
inspired writers, and that they have expressed it in 
terms the clearest and most positive. We have tound 
that they stated this truth with the greatest solemnity, 
and have guarded it, as Mr. Watson admits, by pre- 
cepts, by promises, and by the most terrible threaten- 
ings and punishments. 

We have not found, on the other side, a solitary 
passage where it was declared that we have more than 
one Jehovah, or where it is said that this one was not 
our Redeemer. Neither is there a place where we are 
told that God has an eternal Son, or where it is said 
that there are three equally divine persons. 

Not a word is said about the doctrine of the Trinity, 
nor is it even intimated that there is in the Godhead a 
plurality of persons. Kot one of all the statements 
made as to the absolute unity of God, and as to the 
fact that he is our only Saviour — not one is ever denied 
in any part of these sacred writings. Some of the 
names of Deity have plural forms, from which we 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 141 

might infer that there was more than one Supreme 
Being, if God had not himself told us that there was 
but one. 

Then where is the evidence of a Trinity ? what is 
there to destroy the force of the testimony which the 
Scriptures themselves bring forward against this doc- 
trine ( The evidence for one God — one not only in 
essence, but one also in person — is stronger than is 
the evidence for almost any other doctrine that is 
taught in the Bible. The witnesses are more numerous, 
and they have stated it more clearly, than almost any 
other truth about which they have testified. Why, 
then, may we not believe it ? Is there anything in the 
form of the Jewish benediction, or in the vision of 
Isaiah, or in any other place, which would, in any way, 
invalidate the solemn testimony of so many men 
inspired of God ? In the passages brought forward by 
Trinitarians, is there anything said concerning the 
persons in the Godhead, or of the birth of a Son who 
always existed, and who, therefore, never could have 
been born ? Is there a single place where either of 
these dogmas are implied, or where we should have 
any reason to infer that they might be true ? And if 
there is not — if there is no evidence of a Trinity, or 
of a Deity who had an eternal Son, and another Deity 
who had a Father, and still another who had neither, 



142 THE TKINITY. 

— if such a doctrine is neither expressed nor implied, 
on whose authority do we believe it to be true ? And 
if it is contrary both to reason and revelation, should 
we not reject it at once and forever ? 

We might have introduced other evidence from the 
Old Testament to sustain our view of the subject, but 
as that which we have given is so clear and satisfactory, 
and as we have not found anything which would seem 
to lead us to a different conclusion, we do not deem it 
necessaiy. So we might have taken each of the pas- 
sages we have quoted, and have shown how clearly 
the same great truth is set forth in all of them. But 
when God has himself declared a thing in such plain 
and unequivocal language ; when he has repeated it at 
so many different times, and by so many different per- 
sons ; when we find it to be one of the first and most 
important truths revealed to us in the morning of our 
existence, and, coming down the ages of forty centuries, 
is that with which he closes his revelation to man ; 
when he has himself furnished such evidence, and 
we have produced so great a portion of it, at least, 
what more is necessary? 

When a man has but little evidence to sustain him 
in his views, and that, too, it may be, of a doubtful 
character, he will show it off to the best advantage. 
Like the merchant whose stock of goods has run low, 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 143 

and who, the more his drawers and shelves become 
empty, makes the greater display of what is left; 
so with many who have but little authority from 
the Word of God for their opinions. They search the 
volume of Inspiration for scraps of evidence, where 
there is as little to be found as there is of life and 
vegetation in a barren desert. What is wanting in 
testimony must be made up in words ; and hence we 
have lengthy chapters, and even volumes, on a few 
isolated passages of Scripture, which have as little 
bearing upon the subject as they have connection with 
each other. Nor do we know of any one subject to 
which this remark would more truly apply, than the 
one before us. Texts of Scripture are brought forward 
to show that the doctrine of the Trinity is implied, 
when the truth of the contrary is not only implied, 
but is most clearly expressed, and that, too, by Jehovah 
himself. A vast amount of time and labor have been 
bestowed, in order to show that some of the names of 
Deity are plural, when the only conclusion to which 
ihi> fact could lead us, would be, if any at all, that we 
have more Deities than one, and when we have, at 
every step of the investigation, the solemn statement 
pf God himself that this conclusion is false. In the 
face of his own testimony to the contrary, men have 
searched for evidences of a plurality, hoping to reach a 



144 THE TRINITY. 

conclusion which would in no way follow, even if the 
evidence itself should be ever so good and sufficient. 
Passages, dim with mystery, are referred to as pointing 
out, in some way, this strange and incomprehensible 
doctrine, not so much because it was either expressed 
or implied in them, but more from the fact, it would 
seem, that if they did not teach this, they were unable 
to tell what they did teach. As the doctrine itself is a 
very mysterious one, so it would be reasonable to ex- 
pect that those passages of Scripture which treat of it, 
might, some of them at least, be involved in obscurity. 
And, hence, some are ready to conclude that almost 
any verse in the Bible which they cannot understand, 
must have some reference to the Trinity. 

But let us not deceive ourselves. What God has 
not expressly declared, he does not require us to be- 
lieve. The leading doctrines of the Bible are not 
given in language that is unintelligible. That which 
is once distinctly stated, and which it is necessary that 
we should know, will, generally, be stated again. The 
same great truth, laid down in the first book of reve- 
lation, will be found to run clear through to the very 
last. That God is good and true, and desires the 
happiness of all ; that man needs a Saviour, and has 
had one provided for him ; that he is destined to live 
forever, and cannot be happy unless he is holy — the 



TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 145 

and all the other important doctrines of the Bible, are 
stated in the plainest and most positive terms, and are 
repeated, over and over, throughout every part of the 
Sacred Word. And so, too, of the Trinity. If suoh a 
■doctrine was true, and God had required us to believe 
it, he would have expressly declared it. He would 
have stated that he had a Son who was equal with 
himself, and that while he and his Son were two dis- 
tinct persons, and while there was still another who 
was distinct from both, they were, nevertheless, all 
one Supreme Being. We should not be left to mere 
conjecture on a question of such great importance, but 
should have the truth plainly stated, and should then 
be commanded to believe it. 

But has this been done ? has the Word of God even 
once declared that it was true ? While it speaks so 
many times of the unity of God, why does it not say 
that in this unity there is a Trinity? Why not state 
in one place, at least, so important a truth? The last 
<!<H-rnue, if true, is as important as the first, and that it 
ifi tar more difficult to comprehend, no one will deny. 
We need stronger evidence to convince us of its truth 
th.ui we do of any other doctrine that we have ever 
been required to believe. There are many things 
revealed to us in the Bible which we could not have 
discovered by <>ur natural reason ; but there is no doc- 
10 



146 THE TRINITY. 

trine which, when revealed, appears so contrary to our 
reason as this one of the Trinity. It is the only one 
against which our reason revolts, and which the more 
we try to believe, the more we feel that it cannot he 
true. 

Then, if we are required to believe such a doctrine, 
the evidence from God's Word should be very clear 
and conclusive. This, Trinitarians themselves admit. 
But have we ever found such evidence ? Every other 
important doctrine of the Bible is stated clearly and 
repeatedly; this one is never stated once. God has 
not said that it was so ; and even if he had, we could 
not but feel that it appeared absurd. There is no 
man that ever did or ever can believe that three 
are one. The very moment that such a proposition is 
submitted, he will reject it as a self-evident contra- 
diction. 

Ask a man to prove to you from the Bible the 
doctrine of the Trinity. Tell him to show you a 
single passage where it is declared in so many words, 
and he will call your attention to the evidence that 
there is for the divinity of Christ. Ask him next to 
prove to you that the Deity in Christ is not the only 
one there is in existence— tell him that you believe in 
the supreme divinity of our Lord — that in Christ you 
believe there dwelt an undivided Deity, and that one 






TESTIMONY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 147 

is our Father. Then ask him to prove that this is not 
true. Show him the numerous places where the Deity 
in Christ is called our Father, and then ask him to 
show you one where he is called God the Son. Let 
him examine what Christ and his apostles have said 
upon this subject, together with the testimouy of 
the prophets, and then answer the question himself, 
whether the evidence is greater for one person or for 
three. 

There are a great many devout Christians who 
would, to-day, renounce the doctrine of three divine 
persons, if they had not been taught that in doing 
this they must also deny the divinity of Christ. They 
never have been able to comprehend the Trinity, and 
in their hearts never could, in fact, believe it. It is 
a question which they never could reconcile, and 
which they never will, until they acknowledge and 
worship God, not as three in one, but one in Christ. 
Upon this great truth will the church of our Re- 
deemer finally stand, and in that day " there shall 
be one Lord, and his name one." 



CHAPTER YI. 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON 

CHRIST was the Son of God as no one else 
ever was. He was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, and was born of a virgin, as no one else ever 
was; he is therefore called the only begotten Son 
of God. He had no earthly father, but was begotten 
directly and immediately by God himself. To deny 
this would be to deny the Bible. " Behold, a virgin 
shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name 
Immanuel." " Then said Mary unto the angel, How 
shall this be, seeing 1 know not a man. And the 
angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost 
shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest 
shall overshadow thee ; therefore, also, that holy thing 
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son 
of God." 

The mother of Christ, then, was a virgin, and 
God was his Father as truly as Mary was his mother. 
He did not receive his soul from Adam, but directly 






THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 149 

from God himself. And, hence, Christ tells us that he 
proceeded and came forth from God, and that he came 
down from heaven, etc. He did not receive his soul 
from Adam, or else he would have inherited Adam's 
guilt. If the soul of Christ was transmitted from 
Adam, as was his body, and as have been the souls 
and bodies of all other men, it would have been 
equally guilty. If the doctrine of the fall, and the 
consequent depravity of all men, be true, and the 
Son of God received his soul from the same source 
as have all others, it would certainly have been in 
the same state of guilt. 

But, we all admit, that he was " without sin ; " 
that he was " holy, harmless, undetiled, separate from 
sinners." All men, we say, are sinners by nature. 
But he never had any sin. He was neither a sinner 
by nature nor by transgression; and, though he was 
tempted in all points, like as we are, yet he lived 
without sin. But if he had come into the world as 
have all other men, he would have been as much 
under the sentence of death as are they, and he would 
not have died voluntarily, as he declares he did, but 
would have died under the compulsion of a divine 
decree. It would have been "appointed once" for 
him to <lic, the same as other men, because his soul 
would have been derived from the same source, and 



150 THE TRINITY. 

would be under the same condemnation. But the 
"holy thing," or person, which was born of Mary, 
and which was called the Son of God, was conceived 
by the Holy Ghost, and received its soul, therefore 
directly from God himself. He who by his spirit 
breathed into Adam the breath of life, whereby he 
became a living soul, by the same spirit so over- 
shadowed the mother of Jesus as to bring into exist- 
ence the soul of the second Adam, the Lord from 
heaven : "The power of the highest shall overshadow 
thee" etc. 

But, if the Son received his soul from God, did not 
God impart to him a portion of his own divine nature ? 
"We most unhesitatingly answer, he did. That which 
was begotten by him, and which is declared to be the 
express image of his person, could only be a part of 
himself. There was as much of God in Christ as 
could be confined of an infinite and omnipresent Being 
within any finite form. God, let it be remembered, is 
everywhere. He is a boundless, illimitable ocean of 
spirit. In him we all live, and move, and have our 
being. He cannot be confined to time or space ; but 
is the " one God and Father of all, who is above all, 
and through all, and in you all." He is God in 
Christ, and God out of Christ, and God everywhere, 
from everlasting to everlasting. There was as much 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 151 

of that vast nature in the man Christ Jesus as could 
possibly be confined within such narrow limits. God 
is in every man ; but in his Son was the fullness of 
God. In him " dwelt all the fullness of the God- 
head bodily," and through him God exerted the 
mighty influences of his eternal spirit. 

Then, is the Son God? If he derived his soul 
from Deity, — if God imparted to him a part of his 
own divine nature, — is he not equally divine ? 
Divine, we answer, he most certainly is; and God 
he is to us, in the sense given above. But, are not 
the angels in heaven, and the spirits of the just 
made perfect, and all holy beings in the universe, 
also divine ? Did they not receive that holiness 
which is the image of God directly from him? Did 
not the Deity impart to them a portion of his own 
spirit, whereby they became thus holy, and were 
made likenesses of his own divine nature? 

But, if this universally-diffused spirit is in all 
things, and is that by which all the children of God 
are led, and by which they are kept, and made to 
re8eml»l«' their Divine Creator, — if, by it, they are 
filled with the fullness of God, and become true 
images of the great original, — does this, therefore, 
divide the Deity? Should we say that they were 
all so many different persons of the Godhead ? As 



152 THE TRINITY. 

well might we say that the sun which gives light 
and heat to the planet Mercury is not the one 
which shines upon us. Other suns there may be 
which give light to other worlds; but there is only 
one spiritual Sun in the universe, and that one im- 
parts life and light to all. He is the Lord our 
God, and beside him there is none else. 

And here we cannot fail to observe the errone- 
ous views which the doctrine of three divine per- 
sons has a tendency to give us of the nature and 
character of God. It impresses him upon the mind 
as a localized Being, and not as filling immensity 
with his presence, as the Bible declares that he does. 
It leads us to think of one person, whom we call 
God the Father, as enthroned in heaven, and another 
divine person, called God the Son, who was once 
upon earth, and who, though the infinite and eter- 
nal Jehovah, was confined to one human being as 
the only place of his habitation; and, beside these, 
still another, who also is a supreme Deity, and who 
is waiting, as it were, to receive orders from the other 
two, and then carrying the same into execution. The 
God who was in Christ here upon earth is thought 
of as a different and distinct Being from the one 
who was in heaven. He was confined exclusively 
t^> the man in whom he dwelt, and only moved 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 153 

from place to place as that human temple carried 
him ; nor could he ascend into heaven until it as- 
cended with him. He was the Deity on earth ; the 
Father was the one who reigned in heaven. The 
God who became incarnate was the eternal Son, and 
he lived in the body which was prepared for him, 
and nowhere else. He was the God in Christ ; his 
Father, though in him, was the God out of Christ. 
That Being who fills heaven, and earth, and hell 
with his presence, is thus contracted in his infinite 
dimensions, so to speak, and is bounded by the narrow 
walls of the temple in which he dwells. And, hence, 
a great many would be offended if we were to say that 
there did not dwell, in the man Christ Jesus, the 
whole of the infinite nature of God. In him, the 
church asserts, are "two whole and perfect natures." 
But these are not the exalted views which the Script- 
ures give us of the Deity. If we were to take the 
wings of the morning, and fly to the uttermost parts 
of the earth, they declare that God would be there. 
If we were to take up our bed in hell, he would be 
there. And if we were to fly to the most distant 
star that gems the arch of the firmament of heaven, 
God would be there in all his majesty and power. 
He "sitteth upon the circle of the earth," and is 
Blso present to direct and control the movements of 



154 THE TRINITY. 

every other planet. He is with us, and his eye is 
resting upon us wherever we go; by night and by 
day, in the caverns of earth and in the depths of 
the sea, in this world, and in the world of spirits. 
God is everywhere; none can evade his presence. 
" Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot 
contain thee." 

God, as we said before, is a boundless unfathom- 
able ocean of spirit. He dwells in his Son, and reigns 
through him. He is at the same time dwelling in the 
hearts of all his people, and is working in them to will 
and to do of his own good pleasure. The church on 
earth, and in heaven, holy men and angels, are tilled 
with his presence, and are only happy because they 
have received the fullness of his divine spirit. They 
have found the perfectness of their nature, and the 
completeness of their joy, because they have found 
God in their souls. 

But is it not all the same spirit ? Is not the God 
in Christ, the one who is also in us ? If we love God, 
does he not dwell in us, and we in him ? And is it 
not the same spirit that raised up Jesus from the dead, 
that will also quicken our mortal bodies ? Why say, 
then, that the God in Christ was a different person 
from the one whom we call his Father? If his Father 
is our Father, and his God is our God, and he dwells 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 155 

in us all : how can we say that there is still another ? 
Might we not as well say that the Deity in us is a 
different person from the one which dwells in every 
other believer \ And are we not bound to admit, on 
the supposition of three persons, that the God and 
Saviour of men is not the God and Father of the 
angels in heaven ? 

If they are the " Sons of God " who " shouted for 
joy," the Deity is their Father ; and if, as is believed, 
they have never fallen, they did not need a Saviour. 
They could approach and worship God out of Christ, 
while we worship him in and through Christ. But if 
the one whom they adore, and who is their Father, is 
a different person from the one who revealed himself 
in the flesh — then the God whom we claim and wor- 
ship as our Redeemer, and who, we say, is not the 
Father, but the eternal Son, is a different person from 
the one they worship : and hence our affections would 
not all be centered upon the same, but different ob- 
jects. They would worship God as one, while we 
would worship him as three in one. If they have 
never been redeemed, and do not stand in need of a 
Saviour, they would ascribe honor and glory to that 
divine person who is their Creator, and the Father of 
their spirits; while we should not only adore him, but 
Bhould ascribe equal honor and praise to another divine 



156 THE TRINITY. 

person, who is also our God, and the one, too, who 
has redeemed us from our sins. Then would all our 
affections be placed upon the same object? Would 
there be one supreme head and center toward which 
all the inhabitants of heaven and earth would tend? 
If, beside the Father, we worship God the Son, and 
God the Holy Ghost, and the others do not — have we 
all the same Supreme Deity ? And if we worship 
persons of the Godhead, of which the inhabitants of 
other worlds may be ignorant, might they not also 
know of persons in the Godhead of which we are 
ignorant ; and if this be true, instead of there being 
only three persons, might there not be almost an 
infinite number? 

But why claim that there are even three? Why 
not say that the God in Christ, is the one who is in 
every other being, and the only one there is or can 
be in the universe ? Is not this the language of Inspi- 
ration ? Are we not told that the " head of Christ is 
God ? " And did not Christ come into the world that 
he might bring us to God ? And if we are brought 
to him through a mediator, while others may come to 
him without a mediator, is it not still the same Goc 
whom they all worship ? 

But while it is true that there is only one Supreme 
Being, and that he is in all and through all ; it is also 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 157 

true that he dwelt in his Son, and revealed himself 
through him, as he never did through any other man. 
God has more clearly revealed himself through his 
Son, and is more closely united with him, than he ever 
was, perhaps, with any one else. In the first place, he 
is his only begotten Son ; in the second place, he never 
sinned ; and in the third place, he was that man whom 
God had fore-ordained, from the foundation of the 
world, to be the Prince and Saviour of men. Through 
him is preached the forgiveness of sins, and by him 
came the resurrection of the dead. In him God is now 
reconciling the world unto himself, and by him will 
judge it at the last day. God revealed himself in the 
creation of the heavens and the earth, for " the heavens 
declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth 
hie handy-work." He made a still higher revelation 
pf himself in the creation of man in his own image. 
In the inspiration of the prophets he has taught us 
many things touching his character and attributes, 
lint in his only begotten Son he lias been more clearly 
revealed, and we have learned more perfectly the rela- 
tions that we sustain to him and to each other, than 
ever before. Tie has revealed light and immortality 
in the gospel of his Son. By him we have been 
more clearly taught that God is a spirit, and that he 
is a Being of infinite love and compassion. Man's 



158 THE TRINITY. 

need of pardon and salvation, the work of the spirit 
in purifying the heart, the immortality of the soul, the 
resurrection of the body, the holiness of God and the 
happiness of heaven, — these and other great truths 
were never so clearly made known as they have been 
through the gospel of Jesus Christ. The paternity of 
God and the universal brotherhood of man, were first 
distinctly taught by him, in and through whom God 
has given his highest and most glorious revelation to 
man. God is in his Son, and has manifested his glory 
through him, in the recovery of man, and in reestab- 
lishing him in righteousness, as he never did and never 
could have done in man's creation. By him God has 
reclaimed a fallen world, and has brought it back to 
himself. His love and mercy shine forth in his Son as. 
they never did in the prophets. They were sinful, 
while he was pure and holy. They were conceived in 
sin, while he never had any sin. Their submission to 
God was only partial, while his was perfect and entire. 
They sometimes rebelled and were in doubt ; he never 
had any doubts, and never made any mistakes. He 
was always resigned to his Father's will, and obedient 
even unto death. The spirit of God rested upon the 
prophets and other good men, and their union with 
him was more or less complete, according as they were 
more or less holy. With the Son the spirit dwelt 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 159 

constantly, and in him alone was there a perfect union 
of the human and the divine. Hence we are told 
that this man " was counted worthy of more glory " 
than was even Moses, and that God, even his God, 
had anointed him with the oil of gladness above his 
fellows. He is the only one who ever lived in this 
world without sin ; and because he was pure and holy, 
and was willing to humble himself and become obe- 
dient unto death, even the death of the cross — 
k> wherefore, 1 ' we read, " God also hath highly exalted 
him," etc. It was not so much because he came into 
the world holy, but more because he remained so, that 
God conferred upon him such great honors, and gave 
him such an exalted position. Out of innumerable 
failures, he was, as Robertson has said, the only bud 
that ever developed into a perfect flower on earth. 
He alone, though he was tempted, and though he 
severely suffered from temptation, did not sin. He 
resisted every temptation, submitted to every humilia- 
tion, finished his course with joy, and was exalted to 
i lie right hand of the Majesty on high. 

But though he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, 
and was therefore declared to be God's only begotten 
Son, and to be holy ; yet he did not reach the perfec- 
tion of his nature, except through trial and suffering, 
the same as have all other men. The Son of God was 



160 THE TRINITY. 

as truly on probation, as was Adam, or as were the 
angels of heaven. We read not only that he was 
tempted in all points like as we are, but also that he 
" suffered being tempted." He not only " increased 
in wisdom and stature," but was also developed in his 
moral nature by the discipline through which he 
passed. And hence we are told that God " in bring- 
ing many sons unto glory," made " the captain of 
their salvation perfect through suffering," and that 
Christ, " though he were a Son, yet learned he obedi- 
ence by the things which he suffered." 

According to the inspired record, he as certainly 
increased in knowledge, and became strong morally 
and intellectually by the privations which he endured, 
and the sufferings which he bore, as, physically, he 
grew from a helpless infant up to the stature of a full- 
grown man. He was not fully matured, nor was he 
prepared for the place of honor which was assigned 
him in heaven, until he had submitted to every dis- 
pensation of his Father's will, and had drunk of the 
last bitter cup of sorrow here upon earth. His final 
and complete union with God, which he calls his 
glorification, was not reached at once, but was with 
him, as it is with us, a progressive work. Step by 
step, and day by day, the sorrowing, suffering Son of 
God traveled the path of life, submitting with patience 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 161 

and fortitude to trials and temptations, until his pro- 
bation was ended, and lie was fully prepared for the 
joys that awaited him in his Father's home. He was 
as certainly here on trial, and did as certainly go up 
from earth " through great tribulation," as have any 
others before or since. And he as certainly, therefore, 
did feel the need of help from on high, and did as 
earnestly pray to his Father for grace and strength, 
that he might endure unto the end. He not only 
taught his disciples the necessity of prayer, but felt 
that it was necessary for himself. He prayed with 
them, and he prayed when all alone ; he prayed for 
them, and he earnestly pleaded with God for himself. 
Luke tells us that he was all night engaged in prayer. 
" For the joy that was set before him," he " endured 
the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the 
right hand of the throne of God." 

But if the Son of God was on probation, and if 
probation implies trial, and is a state of being from 
Which their is a liability to fall ; and if it is, further, a 
state of being which is to be succeeded by another, 
with which it is intimately connected, — then is the 
Son, God? Was the Deity ever on probation? was 
there ever a liability for him to fall? was the state in 
which he now is, preceded by one of trial? and is 
What ho now enjoys, the result of what he then en- 



162 THE TKOTITY. 

dured ? Is it not said that " God cannot be tempted 
with evil, neither tempteth he any man " ? Then how 
could the only begotten Son, if he was God, not only 
be tempted with evil, but actually suffer from the 
same % If he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born 
of a woman, " increased in wisdom," learned obedience, 
and was made perfect through suffering ; if he " suf- 
fered being tempted," lived a life of prayer and faith, 
became obedient unto death, had a resurrection from 
the dead, and has entered into his reward ; can it be 
possible that he is the supreme and everlasting 
Jehovah? 

No, he is not God, but he is his only begotten and 
dearly beloved Son. God is revealed in him, and has 
manifested himself forth through him. The work of 
God in Christ is the great theme of all the apostles. 
The fall of man through Adam, and his salvation 
through Christ, are the two leading thoughts in God's 
Word. 

Milton struck the great key-note of the Bible when 
he sung of paradise lost, through the first man Adam, 
and paradise regained, through the second Adam. 
Through the first Adam man lost heaven, and was cut 
off from communion with his Maker ; through the 
second, paradise has been regained, and a lost and fallen 
world has been brought back to God. " As by mai 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 163 

came death, by man came also the resurrection of the 
dead." " As by one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners," and judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation, so " the grace of God, and the gift by 
grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath, 
abounded unto many," and they who receive of this 
gift, and of the abundance of grace, shall reign in life 
by him. Through the first man Adam all must die ; 
through the second man Adam they shall be made 
alive. The first Adam was tempted and fell ; the 
second Adam was tempted, but lived " without sin." 
The first man Adam, as he had no earthly father, is 
called the Son of God ; the second Adam, as he had 
no earthly father, and as he was conceived in the 
womb of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, is not only 
called the Son of God, but also his only begotten Son. 
The first Adam was a representative of the entire 
human family. From him we have all descended, and 
in him we have all become sinful. The second man 
Adam is also a representative of the entire race, and is 
tin ri tore called the Son of man. By the righteousness 
of tlii.^ man, the "free gift came upon all men to justi- 
fication of life;" and by his "obedience," shall "many 
be made righteous." He was not the son of Joseph, 
or of any other man, but was the brother of all. lie 
did not represent any sect or nationality, but had 



164 THE TRINITY. 

sympathies wide as the world, and intensely loved all 
of every kindred and tribe and people. He taught 
that God was our Father; that he was our brother; 
that all the nations of the earth were of one family. 
He was not the Jew, nor the Greek, nor the Roman, 
nor the Barbarian, but was the Son of man. And 
wherever he met a fallen and lost son of Adam's race, 
he claimed him as his brother, told him that he had a 
Father in heaven, and that his origin was divine and 
his hopes eternal. 

The Jews claimed that they should love one an- 
other because they had one common father. They had 
descended from Abraham, and were therefore members 
of the same family, and should love each other as 
brethren. But they could, at the same time, hate all 
the other nations of the earth. To remove this preju- 
dice, and to destroy the feelings of hatred which existed 
among all the other nations, Christ taught that the 
Deity was the great Father of us all, and that we were 
therefore united in one common brotherhood. He 
transferred the fatherhood from Abraham right up to 
the God of heaven, and upon this great truth he laid 
the foundation of his universal empire. Whenever he 
speaks to them, therefore, about the Deity, instead of 
saying that he is God, he, in more than one hundred 
places, calls him their Father. " Call no man your father 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 165 

upon earth," lie said, " for ye have one Father which is 
in heaven." "After this manner," said he, "pray ye: 
Our Father which art in heaven." " Pray to thy Father 
in secret, and thy Father which seeth in secret shall 
reward thee openly." Who is it that knows what 
things we need before we pray ? " Your Father," Christ 
answers, " knoweth what things ye have need of before 
ye ask him." Who will forgive us, if we forgive others? 
"If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly 
Father will also forgive you." Does God clothe the 
lilies of the held, and feed the fowls of the air ? " Your 
heavenly Father," he answers, " feedeth them." Why 
are you to love your enemies, and bless them that curse 
you, and pray for them that despitefully use you? 
" That ye may be the children of your Father which 
is in heaven." Are we to be perfect as God is perfect? 
" Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is 
in heaven is perfect." 

And so in all his public discourses, and in all his 
private conversations, he constantly points them to the 
Deity as their Father. The Father is the one who 
sent him into the world, the one who performs through 
him such mighty works, the one to whom he prays, 
and from wliniM lie received his doctrine, his kingdom, 
his life, his all. He is obedient to him through life, 
and commends to him his spirit in death. 



166 THE TRINITY. 

There was no truth which Christ ever taught more 
distinctly, or to which he referred more frequently, 
than that God was our Father, and that he was his 
Son. And wherever this truth has been proclaimed, 
it has exerted a mighty influence upon the minds of 
men. The nations of the earth have been coming 
closer together, have felt that they had one common 
origin, were members of the same family, and should 
love each other, therefore, as brethren. It is a truth 
which, like the Christian religion itself, has been widen- 
ing and spreading in its influence ever since it was 
first uttered ; and which is destined one day to take the 
wings of the morning, and fly to the uttermost parts 
of the earth. And whenever all men have learned 
that God is their Father, and that Christ is their friend 
and brother, and that they are bound to him and to 
each other by the nearest ties and the most endearing 
relations, and have felt this truth in their hearts, then 
they will not " learn war any more," but will " beat 
their swords into plowshares, and their spears into 
pruning-hooks." " They shall not hurt nor destroy in 
all my holy mountain ; for the earth shall be full of 
the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the 
sea." 

To effect such a happy consummation as this, God 
has sent his Son into the world. By the great truths 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 167 

which he taught, the uoble life which he lived, and 
the heroic death which he died, he revealed to us 
the dignity of man and the infinite mercy and good- 
ness of God. By his resurrection from the dead, he 
demonstrated the divinity of his mission, and the 
immortal destiny of our race. By his Godlike exam- 
ple, we have learned how pure and holy are those 
who live without sin, and who are in constant com- 
munion with God. 

Man had heard of holiness in every age of the 
world, but had never understood what it was until 
he had before him a living example. When, in the 
fullness of time, the Son made his appearance, and 
me] i gazed into his face, and saw there reflected the 
glory of God ; and when they heard the words of 
gentleness and love which fell from his lips, as he 
told them of his Father and of heaven, and that he 
was indeed their brother, and that if they would live 
like him they might dwell with him in their Father's 
home forever; that for this purpose his Father had 
Bent him, and that for this purpose he had come; — 
when this was seen and heard, it kindled a new fire 
in the hearts of men ; they felt as they never had 
before, and began to strive for a higher and a nobler 
lifi'. The thoughts of God, and immortality, and 
heaven, which he inspired, aroused them from the 



168 



THE TRINITY. 



slumber of ages, and from that moment a brighter 
and a happier morning began to dawn upon the 
world. He told them that he had come to reconcile 
them to God and bring them to heaven ; that for this 
purpose he would institute a church upon earth which 
would conduct them, if faithful, into the church above ; 
that in order to be happy they must be holy ; that 
his Father had given him a kingdom, and all power 
and authority to administer the government of the 
same; that they were the subjects of this kingdom, 
and that he should rule over it, and be their king, 
until the work of reconciliation was finally effected, 
and death was destroyed, and that then the king- 
doms would become one, and God would be all in all. 
This is who the only begotten Son of God is, 
and this is the work which God sent him to do. 
Through sin man had become unholy, and was 
estranged from his Maker. Christ came to restore 
him to righteousness, and bring him back to God. 
The world was lost, and he came to save it. "The 
Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which 
was lost." Darkness covered the earth, and gross 
darkness the people; all nations were in the valley 
and shadow of death, and he came to give them light. 
All were dead, because all had sinned ; and he there- 
fore came, that through him all might have life. 



THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. 169 

"This is the record, that God hath given to us 
eternal life, and this life is in his Son." Men had 
the impression that God was cruel, and delighted in 
their punishment. They were therefore afraid, and 
desired to shun his presence. Christ came to reveal 
the love of God, and to teach them that he alone 
could make them happy. " God so loved the world," 
he told them, " that he gave his only begotten Son, 
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, 
but have everlasting life." And that he might im- 
press this truth upon their minds, he declares again, 
that " God sent not his Son into the world to condemn 
the world, but that the world, through him, might be 
saved." "In this was manifested the love of God," 
Bays John, " because that God sent his only begotten 
Son into the world that we might live through him." 
All men, again, desired to be free. They had been 
seeking after freedom in every age and nation, but 
had never found it. Christ told them that they could 
find it in God. " If the Son, therefore, shall make 
you free," said he, "ye shall be free indeed." Man 
was in slavery, because he lived in sin ; was unhappy, 
because he was in rebellion against his Maker; and 
the Son of God was, therefore sent into the world 
thai he mighl put down the rebellion, and restore 
peace and happiness to the nations of the earth. He 



170 THE TRINITY. 

therefore set up his kingdom upon earth, which is 
a kingdom of righteousness, and over it he will reign 
till righteousness everywhere prevails, and the "ran- 
somed church of God are saved to sin no more." 
" He must reign till he hath put all enemies under 
his feet.'' " The last enemy that shall be destroyed 
is death." 

For this purpose he now sits upon the mediatorial 
throne, and holds the keys of death and hell ; and 
upon it he will remain until death, hell and the grave 
have submitted to his sway, and a voice is heard from 
heaven saying, " There shall be no more death." 

" Then cometh the end, when he shall have de- 
livered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; 
when he shall have put down all rule, and all author- 
ity and power . . . And when all things shall be 
subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself 
he subject unto him that did put all things under 
him, that God may be all in all." 



C HAP TER VII 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

r I THE Father of the only begotten Son is the Holy 
-L Ghost. This the Bible expressly declares. " The 
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of 
the highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also that 
holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called 
the Son of God. And it is, therefore, stated in the 
Apostles' Creed, and taught in all the churches of the 
land, that the Son of God was " conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," etc. 

But if he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and 
was declared to be the Son of God, the Holy Ghost is 
not only his Father, but is also his God ; and hence he 
is the one who is called " the God and Father of our 
hoi<l Jesus Christ," and the one who is also declared 
to be the God and Father of us all. Thou, how can 
file Holy Ghosl he a person distinct from the one 
whom we call the Father? How can we say that 
there are three persons, and that the Father of Christ 



172 



THE TRINITY. 



is the first person, and then assert, as we do, that he 
was begotten by the thi2*d person ? Is not the one 
who begets a son, the father of that son? And if 
Christ was begotten by one person, and is, at the 
same time, the Son of another person, did he not 
have two Fathers!' And if he did have two, and 
each one of these is supremely divine, can he be 
equal with them ? If the Son was conceived by the 
Holy Ghost, and we say that he is the second person 
in the Trinity, and then admit, which we are bound 
to do on this supposition, that the first and third 
persons are each his Father, what kind of a Trinity 
would that make ? One divine person, who is called 
the Father of all ; and another divine person, who 
is the Father of all : and still another person, who 
is the Son of the other two. Then, instead of say- 
ing that there is only "one God and Father of all," 
Paul should have stated that there are two — two 
Fathers and one Son. 

" The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," is the 
language of Luke ; while Matthew states it in these 
words : " Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this 
wise : When as his mother Mary was espoused to Jo- 
seph, before they came together, she was found with 
child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph, her husband, 
being a just man, and not willing to make her a pub- 






THE HOLY SPIRIT. 173 

lie example, was minded to put her away privily. 
But while he thought on these things, behold, the 
angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, say- 
ing, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto 
thee Mary thy wife ; for that which is conceived in 
her is of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 1 : 18-20.) Then, 
it is certain that the conception of Christ was the 
work of the Holy Ghost, who was, therefore, his 
Father, whether he had any other or not. 

Doctor Whedon has seen this difficulty, and is the 
only commentator, so far as we have observed, who 
has noticed it. He admits that, if the Son of God 
was conceived by the Holy Ghost, it would make 
the latter his Father ; and he, therefore, denies that 
it was the Holy Ghost. In his note on Luke 1 : 35, 
he says : " The phrase holy spirit here designates 
not the third person in the Trinity; for, then, he 
would be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ; but 

I the same holy spirit of Deity which brooded upon 
chaos, and produced the creation. . . . The Holy 
ffhoat vludl come upon thee — The pure spirit of God 
should sanctify her nature, and render her the holy 
mother of the Son of God." He sees the difficulty 
vitv dearly, and, to avoid it, he denies what both the 
Bible and the church most positively teach. It is 
not the Holy Ghost that is meant, lie thinks, but 



174 THE TRINITY. 

the "pure spirit of God," or the "holy spirit of 
Deity which brooded upon chaos, and produced the 
creation." But both Matthew and Luke declare that 
it was the Holy Ghost ; and their statement has never 
been contradicted by any other writer. It is not only 
the testimony of the evangelists, but has been the 
doctrine of the church ever. since. If it is not the 
Holy Ghost, why do these inspired writers say that 
it is ? And beside this, if we accept Doctor Whedon's 
explanation, it would make four persons instead of 
three. For, if the pure spirit of God is not the 
Holy Ghost, but is the "holy spirit of Deity which 
brooded upon chaos," then it is certain, on the sup- 
position of the Trinitarian, that, in addition to the 
Father and the Son, there are two other separate 
and distinct spirits in the Godhead. The one is the 
" pure spirit of God," of which Doctor Whedon speaks, 
and the other is the Holy Ghost, which Christ de- 
clares is the "spirit of truth." 

But what kind of a Deity would this make ? If the 
Holy Ghost is a spirit, and if the Father and the Son 
are two other spirits — which is Mr. Howe's definition 
of the Trinity, — and if these three spirits are all one 
Deity, and this one Deity has a spirit which is neither 
the Holy Ghost, nor either of the others, separately, 
but the spirit of the three united in one, — then why 



THE HOLT SPIKIT. 175 



may we not say that the Deity is made up of 
spirits, and that these are the seven of which John 
speaks in the book of Revelation ( 

But as unreasonable as is the view taken by Doctor 
Whedon, it is not any more so than the position taken 
by all other Trinitarians. He denies that the Son was 
conceived by the Holy Ghost, while the Bible declares 
that he was. The church, on the other hand, asserts 
that he ivas conceived by the Holy Ghost, and then 
denies that the Holy Ghost was his Father. Doctor 
Whedon asserts that if the Son was begotten by the 
third person in the Trinity, it would necessarily make 
him the Son's Father. It cannot be the "third 
person," he says, " for then he would be the Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ." And in this we are bound to 
admit that he is correct. But the church, far less 
consistent in this respect, declares that, while he was 
conceived by the third person, he is, nevertheless, the 
Son of the first person. The church may appear to be 
more scriptural, but Doctor Whedon is certainly far 
more logical and consistent. For, if the Son was con- 
ceived by the third person in the Trinity, and he is a 
person distinct from the Father, as is claimed, then this 
conception was the; work of the third person, and not 
the work of the Father. Or, if, by the " power of the 
highest," we are to understand the agency and work 



176 THE TRINITY. 

also of the Father, as is claimed by some, then, this 
conception was the work of two persons, and the Son 
would therefore have two Fathers. 

But no one will admit that he had two Fathers. 
As soon would it be believed that he had two mothers. 

Then the Father and the Holy Ghost are not two 
different persons, but are one and the same. In other 
words, the Holy Ghost, as stated in the first chapter, 
is God's spirit, and is no more a person distinct from 
him, than is the spirit of a man a person distinct from 
the man himself. 

We do not say that the man is one person, and 
that his word is another person, and his spirit still 
another ; but that the man is one, and that he works 
by his word and by his spirit, etc. Man is a spirit the 
same as is God, and was in this respect made in the 
image of God. His spirit is that which he received 
from Deity ; that which God imparted to him when 
he breathed into Adam the breath of life and he 
became a living soul. And as man is a spirit, and the 
spirit is the man, so is God a spirit, and the spirit is 
God. " God is a spirit, and they that worship him 
must worship him in spirit and in truth." He is 
nothing but spirit — a purely spiritual and omnipres- 
ent Being. His spirit is himself, and cannot possibly 
be a person different or distinct from himself. In it 






THE HOLY SPIRIT. 177 

we all live and move and have our being. He is the 
" eternal spirit " which searcheth all things. 

But if God is a spirit, and the spirit is God, what 
does he mean when he speaks of his spirit? In 
answer we ask, what do we mean when we speak of 
our spirits? We speak of them in the same way 
precisely that he does of his, and mean the same thing. 
What then is the spirit of a man ? Is it his soul ; or 
would we call these, two different and distinct essences, 
or spirits of the man ? And if these are not the 
same, what do we understand by the mind ? Is it 
distinct from the other two \ or are they all the same ? 
We are to love God with all our mind, and heart, and 
soul, and strength; are to worship him in our bodies 
and spirits, which are his, and are to pray that we may 
be sanctified throughout soul, and body, and spirit, 
and other similar expressions. 

Now, what are we to understand by such language ? 
If the word of God, and his spirit, are different and 
distract persons of the Godhead, so are the word and 
(Spirit of man different persons of the man, because 
the Bible speaks of all in the same way. And if the 
word of man ami his spirit are two different persons of 
tin' man, so are also his mind, and heart, and soul, as 
many more ; and this would make, as we have seen in 
another chapter, not three persons, but a much larger 



178 THE TRINITY. 

number. But whoever thought of teaching that there 
were three or five, or any other number of persons 
in man ? Who does not believe that he is one in 
person, as he is one in body and one in spirit; and that 
while there are what we call different departments of 
the mind, and different members of the body, there is 
yet only one man, and that is his immortal soul ! And 
if we even believed that the mind, and the soul, and 
the spirit were not the same thing, we should not say 
that each one of these was a person, and that each one 
was singly, and by itself, a man / and if any one was 
unreasonable enough to teach such a doctrine, it would 
not be true. Then how can it be true that the word 
and the spirit of God are persons distinct from each 
other, and yet that each one of these is perfect Deity ? 
But we apprehend that by the mind, and soul, and 
spirit, we are not to understand so many different 
agents or spirits of the man, but only different names 
given to the different manifestations of the same spirit- 
ual and immortal being, acting under different condi- 
tions and modes of existence. We do not think that 
many will differ with us when we say that the mind is 
the soul as connected with the body, and that the 
spirit is the mind or soul exerting itself through the 
body. To the latter part of this proposition, especially, 
we do not think that many will object; since it is 






THE HOLY SPIRIT. 179 

certain that the Bible uses the term spirit in this sense 
in very many places. The soul is acknowledged to be 
the spiritual and immortal principle in man. It was 
not formed from the dust of the earth, but came 
directly from God. God formed man from the dust of 
the ground, and then " breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life, and man became a living soul." 

The soul is called this immortal principle, whether 
active or passive. The spirit, on the other hand, is the 
soul in action, or the soul as it is seen exerting itself 
through the body. Man has a soul, whether working 
or resting, whether awake or sleeping ; but when the 
man is aroused, and his soul is seen manifesting itself 
in the features of the face, and in all the movements of 
the body, we call it his spirit. As it speaks to us 
through the eye and in the voice, and in the motions 
of the hands and face, we say that it is the spirit of the 
man conversing with our spirits. If he is very active, 
and displays a great deal of energy, we speak of him 
as a man of "great spirit," or one who is "full of 
spirit;" while, if he is not active, and does and says 
but little, he is declared to be a man "without spirit." 
In this way do we all speak of the soul when in action, 
and when we have the evidence of its activity from the 
influence which it exerts upon us, or upon other sop- 
" rounding objects. We call it the spirit of the man. 
The soul operating through the body is the spirit. 



180 THE TRINITY. 

And as we use it in this sense, so do also the writers 
of the Bible. We read that when the queen of Sheba 
saw the glory of Solomon, she was so overcome that 
" there was no more spirit in her." She had a soul as 
much as she ever had, but it had no power to act. 
Such a display of magnificence was more than she 
could bear ; and because she was unable, for the time, 
to speak or move, it is therefore declared that her spirit 
was gone. So Jacob, when he first heard that Joseph 
was yet alive, fainted in his heart ; but when assured 
that it was really true, it is said that " the spirit of 
Jacob their father revived." So also when the kings 
of the Amorites and the Canaanites heard of the won- 
derful displays of the power of God by the hand of 
Joshua — "their heart fainted, neither was their spirit 
in them any more." They lost their energy, and did 
not feel that they had the courage to take up arms 
against Israel. In the same way it is said of Samson 
that, when he was nearly famishing for water, and God 
provided it for him, " when he had drunk, his spirit 
came again, and he revived "; and of the Egyptian 
who was brought to David, when pursuing the Ama- 
lekites, and who had been for three days without any- 
thing to eat or drink, that, after they gave him food 
and water, " his spirit came again to him." 

In all these instances, and in others which might 



THE HOLY SPIUIT. 181 

be given, it is evident that by the spirit of man the 
inspired writers mean the sonl in action — or the mind, 
in its three departments of intellect, sensibility, and 
will, exerting itself through the body. 

Man has the power to think, to feel, and to will. 
These are called the three great departments or di- 
visions of the human mind. It is not so divided in 
fact, because the mind is one and indivisible, but these 
are bo many powers, so to speak, of the one immortal 
soul. We learn of the existence of these powers of 
the soul in ourselves from consciousness ; and we learn 
of their existence in others, only as they act upon us 
through the material body in which the soul dwells, 
and with which it is united. We know nothing of the 
working of a man's mind, only as we see it in and 
through his body. If through it, the soul goes out 
and converses with us, we do not say, generally, that 
it i.- his soul, but his spirit — the spirit of the man com- 
muning with our spirits ; and as we thus speak, so, as 
we have seen, does also the Bible. What the man 
speaks, or does, we call the work of his spirit. 

Now, in the same way, precisely, does the Bible 
speak of the spirit of (iod. As we judge of the spirit 
of man by hie actions, so we judge and speak of God's 
spirit. If the actions of the man give evidence of 
great bravery, we call him a "brave spirit"; if they arc 



182 THE TRINITY. 

noble, we say that he has a " noble spirit "; if kind and 
patient, a "kind and patient spirit"; and so of all his 
actions. So what God does in us is called the work of 
the spirit of God. It is through the operation of his 
spirit that we are renewed in heart and become new 
creatures. By it we are born again ; by it we are 
sanctified, and made partakers of the holiness of God ; 
by it we are comforted and guided into all truth ; and 
by it we will not only be led through this life, but will 
be raised from the dead and conducted into heaven. 

It was the spirit of God that "moved upon the 
face of the waters" in the morning of creation, that 
brought into existence all the host of heaven, breathed 
into Adam a " living soul," inspired all the prophets, 
became the Father of the only begotten Son, was the 
one by whose power Christ performed his miracles, 
filled the hearts of believers with joy and gladness, 
and promised to continue with them " even to the end 
of the world." As the soul, acting through the body, 
is called the spirit of man ; so what God does in us 
through his Son is called the work of his spirit. God 
is everywhere, whether we realize it or not. He is 
present with us and is working in us, though, like 
Jacob, we may know it not. His spirit is ever hover- 
ing around and about us as a cloud of mercy, and 
this spirit is God. God is a sjjirit, and the spirit, 






THE HOLY SPIRIT. 183 

therefore, must be God. Whether in Christ, or out 
of Christ ; before the incarnation, or after the incarna- 
tion — God is not, never was, and never can be, any- 
thing but an omnipresent spirit. And to say, there- 
fore, that he is one person, and the holy spirit is an- 
other person, is even more unreasonable, and is a more 
monstrous doctrine, than to assert that the man and 
his spirit are two distinct persons of the same man. 

Whenever the Bible speaks of the Deity, without 
any reference to what he has done, or is doing, it 
declares that he is God the everlasting Jehovah. 
When it speaks of the works which he has performed, 
it calls them the works of God ; just as it calls what 
a man performs, the works of man. But when it 
speaks of that by which God works, it tells us that 
it is his word, and his spirit, etc.; just as when it 
declares that that by which a man works is his word 
and his spirit. Now, it is certain that when these ex- 
pressions are used in speaking of the Deity, they mean 
nothing more than when the same expressions are used 
in speaking of man. God's word and spirit are no 
more distinct from him than a man's word and spirit 
are distinct from the man. The same expressions are 
used in the Bible in reference to both, and in precisely 
the same sense. The spirit of God is to him, and per- 
forms for him, what the spirit of man is to and per- 



184 THE TRINITY. 

forms for the man. And they are not only used in 
the same sense, but the very reason why these things 
are said of God is that he may be more fully compre- 
hended by us. 

The spirit of man is inclosed in a human body 
This body is not the man, but simply the house in 
which he dwells. It may be destroyed and the man 
still live. It may return to the dust from whence it 
was taken, and the spirit, which is the man, will return 
to God. Now, as man has a temple in which he 
dwells, so has the Deity ; and this temple is the whole 
fabric of the material universe. The heavens above 
and the earth beneath, compose the house or dwelling- 
place of an invisible and omnipresent Deity. These 
are the outward forms in which God " has concealed," 
as Robertson expresses it, " his essence — the living 
garment in which the invisible has robed his mysteri- 
ous loveliness." And as man acts and speaks through^ 
his body, so does God act and speak in all the works 
of Nature. The stars that look down upon us in silent 
majesty reveal to us the living God. " The heavens 
declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth 
his handiwork." But in the face of Jesus Christ the 
glory of God is declared, and his character is seen and 
revealed ; as in the face and actions of a man is seen 
and revealed the character of his soul. And hence, as 



THE HOLT SPIRIT. 185 

the soul of the man acts upon us through his body, so 
God is said to work in us through his Son. And as 
the operations of the man are from the soul, and 
through the body; so these divine operations are 
everywhere in the Bible declared to be from God and 
through his Son. And still further, as the operations 
of the soul through the body are said to be the opera- 
tions of the spirit ; so the work of God in our hearts 
is declared to be the operation of his spirit, or the 
work of the Holy Ghost. 

That the soul does act through the body in the 
way we have described, no one will deny ; and that 
God does work in us by and through his Son, and that 
this is called the work of his spirit, no one can deny 
who believes the Bible. It is the uniform language 
of Christ and all his apostles. That which dwelt in 
Christ was the spirit of God, and that spirit was God. 
It was this that was "made flesh and dwelt among 
us," and was really and truly God working for man's 
Mil vat ion. " God was in Christ reconciling the world 
unto JiiniM-lfr And (rod is to-day operating in our 
hearts through his Son, in a similar way as the opera- 
tions of the soul are performed through the body; and 
this will explain some passages of Scripture, we think, 
which cannot be understood in any other way. 

The soul cannot act through the body unless it is 



186 THE TRINITY. 

in union with it. Neither can God's spirit work in 
us to will and to do of his own good pleasure, unless 
we are in union with him. He may and does influ- 
ence all our hearts more or less; but before he can 
have entire control of our spirits, our union with him 
must be perfect and entire. But no one who is in sin 
can be perfectly united to God. A man must be holy, 
because God is holy, before they can be one. Henee 
the spirit of God was not given in its fullness to any 
except Christ. And even with him the union of the 
human and the divine was not fully completed until 
after his resurrection from the dead. Though " with- 
out sin," he was yet on probation, and had to endure 
trials and temptations the same as other men. He 
was made " perfect," as M*e have seen, " through suf- 
fering" ; and "though a Son, yet learned he obedience 
by the things which he suffered." His union with the 
Deity was not, therefore, in this sense, made at once, 
but was with him, as it must be with us, a progressive 
work. This union he calls his glorification, even as 
our complete union with God in heaven is called our 
glorification. Hence the Son of God speaks of it as 
an event which is to take place in the future, and 
for it he earnestly prays to his Father. " Father, . . . 
glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." 
Having finished his labors upon earth, and having 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 187 

become fully resigned to the death which he was about 
to die, and speaking of it as though it had already 
taken place, he exclaims : " Now is the Son of man 
glorified, and God is glorified in him." 

Now, after his ascension into heaven, and his glori- 
fication, or complete and permanent union with God, 
was effected ; we read that then, and not till then, the 
Holy Ghost was given in all its fullness to man. " For 
the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus 
was not yet glorified." God was to be in union with 
the Son of man, and was to work in us through him, 
as the soul is in the body and works through it ; and 
his spirit could no more have free access to man, until 
this union was effected, than could the soul act through 
the body until it was united with it. Through the 
disobedience of the first man, sin entered into the 
world, and the hearts of men had become effectually 
closed to the spirit of God ; through the obedience of 
the second man the door was opened, and God poured 
out his spirit upon all the nations. In other words, 
the spirit of God cannot be given in the plenitude of 
its power until it is in full and complete union with 
man ; and that man must be the representative of the 
race, as was Adam, and must lie the mediator between 
it and God. 

In this way we can understand, again, why the 



188 THE TRINITY. 

terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, occur in the order 
in which they are given in the New Testament. If 
they are so many distinct persons of the Godhead, and 
are equally divine, why is the Father named first? 
And if the Son was conceived by the Holy Ghost, 
why is the Son called the second person, and the Holy 
Ghost the third ? If the latter is the Father of the 
Son, why is he not named first, and the Son last? 
If the Father is named first because he is the Father; 
why should not the Holy Ghost be called the second ? 
or, if the Son has two Fathers, why is he placed after 
one and before the other? "Wliy not sometimes place 
the Holy Ghost first, and the Father last ? or, if the 
Son is equal with the other two, why is he not some 
times first and sometimes last, and not always in the 
middle ? On the hypothesis of the Trinitarian, there 
can be no reason given why this order should be ob- 
served ; but, on the contrary, there would be many 
reasons why it should not. The placing of the Son 
after the Father, because he was begotten by him, 
would, evidently, place him also after the Holy Spirit, 
and would make him the third person instead of the 
second. Nor could there be any reason, on this suppo- 
sition, for always placing the Holy Spirit even after 
the Father ; much less after the Son. Still, this is the 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 189 

order in -which Christ has given them, and from it the 
church, in this respect, has never departed. 

Now, if we say that the Father is God, and that he 
works in us through his Son, and that this work of 
God is called the work of the Holy Ghost — we have 
then not only adopted the language of the Bible, but 
have explained why these terms are given in the above 
order. God, as our creator, is our Father; he is the 
" Father of Spirits." Of him and from him are all 
things. And as he is not only our Creator, but is 
declared to be our Redeemer and Saviour, he is, there- 
fore, named first. And as the eternal life which he 
has given us, is received through his Son, his Son is 
named second. The stream of divine life is from the 
Father, through, the Son, and into our hearts; there- 
fore the Father is named first, and the Son second ; 
and as this work in us is called the work of the Holy 
p-host, or "spirit of truth," it is named last. What 
God does through his Son is called God's work, as what 
the soul does through the body is called man's work ; 
but as this operation of the soul through the body is 
called the spirit of man, so the work of God in Christ 
is railed the work of God's spirit. The terms Father, 
and Son, and Holy Ghost, are to the Deity, after he 
became incarnate, what the terms soul, and body, and 
spirit, are to man. Hence this Trinity did not exist 



190 THE TMNITY. 

until God manifested himself in the flesh, and this is 
the reason why it is never mentioned in the Old 
Testament. 

God did not work through his Son the first four 
thousand years of the world's history, hecause his Son 
was not yet horn, and could not have existed until he 
was born. But after the Son was bora, and God 
dwelt in a human body, as does the soul of man, then, 
and not till then, do we read of a Divine Trinity. 
God out of Christ is a spirit, the same as is also man 
when separate from the body. When at death the 
soul is separated from the body, the spirit returns to 
God who gave it. The man is then as truly a spirit, 
and is nothing but a spirit, as God out of Christ is a 
spirit. But while connected with the body, there is in 
man a trinity, as there is with God in Christ a trinity. 
The man converses with us through his body. The 
operation is from the soul, through the body, and into 
our souls ; as with God it is from the Father, through 
the Son, and into the hearts of the children of men. 
The Trinity in Christ is, then, the same as the trinity 
in man. The one is human, the other divine. The 
operation in the one instance is called the spirit of 
man, in the other the spirit of God. 

But we have other evidences that this is indeed the 
correct view of the subject. While it is both reasona- 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 191 

ble and scriptural, and while it satisfactorily explains 
those passages to which we have already referred, it 
will also explain many others which cannot be under- 
stood on any other supposition. " The Father that 
dwelleth in me," said Christ, " He doeth the works." 
In other places it is declared, as we have seen, that 
these works were done by the spirit of God, etc. Now 
why does he not say that the spirit which dwelleth in 
him doeth the works, and that they are done by the 
Father '. It was certainly the spirit that did dwell in 
him, because he everywhere declares it; and that spirit 
was certainly God, because, as he himself teaches, and 
as all admit, " God is a spirit," and cannot be anything 
else. Then, we ask again, how can a spirit have a 
>j*i ri t ^ What kind of a being, or person, would the 
spirit of a spirit be? xVnd if God is a spirit — which 
means one spirit — how can he be two? And if beside 
these there is still another spirit called God the 
Son, and In' is the one who became incarnatej why 
does he not do the works himself? Why is it that the 
one that did become incarnate "can do nothing," and 
that thf work i.- performed by two others who did not 
become incarnate? And if of these two, the work is 
.-.lid to have been done by the one, why are they de- 
clared to be the works of tin; other? If the Holy 
Spirit is a person distinct from the Father, and if by 



192 THE TRINITY. 

this spirit Christ performed all his works — how can 
they be the works of the Father? 

To none of these questions can those who believe 
in three divine persons give any answer whatever. 
And if the word and the spirit of God are two different 
persons, as distinct from each ether as they are from 
the Father, then the works of the one cannot be the 
works of the other. That which the spirit does would 
be the works oi the spirit ; and that which the Father 
does, the works of the Father ; neither could the Father 
work by the spirit, and call that which he did by it his 
own works, any more than the spirit could work by 
the Father, and call that which it did by him the works 
of the spirit. If they are all equal, the one is as 
independent as the other, and that which each one 
does, by himself, would be his own works, and could 
not be the works of another. And yet the testimony is 
that God the Father does the works, and that he does 
them by his spirit, etc. 

Now why is this so ? Why does it not say that as 
the Father works by his word, and by his spirit, so do 
they work by the Father, and by each other ? It is cer- 
tain that if the doctrine of the Trinitarian is correct, 
the testimony of Christ and his apostles, on this point, 
must be rejected. For to say that the Son is equal 
with the Father, and is a person distinct from him, 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 193 

and yet admit that lie " can do nothing " of himself, 
would not only be a contradiction of terms, but would 
be worse than nonsense. And to say that the Father 
can work by the spirit, while the spirit cannot work 
by the Father, though he is equal in power and author- 
ity with him; or to say that what the spirit does is 
the work of the Father, while we claim that they are 
not the same but different persons, would be equally 
absurd. 

But if we admit, what the Bible certainly seems 
to teach, that the Father is the Deity, and that he 
dwells in Christ in a similar way as, in man, the 
soul does in the body ; and that as man works by 
his word and by his spirit, so does God ; that as we 
call what the spirit does, in man, the works of man, 
so does the Bible call what the spirit of God does, 
the works of God ; that as we say that the man works 
by his spirit, and not the spirit by the man, so is it 
said that the Deity works by his spirit, and not the 
spirit by the Deity ; and that God is therefore one, 
as man is one; — if we are willing to admit this as 
true, we have certainly adopted the language of the 
Bible, and have at the same time most fully explained 
why such language is used. It gives us a very clear 
understanding of many things in the Word of God 

which, on any other supposition, would not only 
18 



194 THE TRINITY. 

appear unaccountable, but absolutely contradictory 
and absurd. 

Still furtber: if this view of the subject is not 
correct, but the Son of God existed from eternity, 
why is not this fact revealed in the Old Testament? 
This we have already alluded to briefly, but wish, 
in this connection, to refer to it again. If the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, are three equally divine and 
eternal persons of the Godhead, why was the world 
in ignorance of this for more than forty centuries? 
These Scriptures speak frequently of the Deity who 
is our Father, and they reveal to us very clearly his. 
character and attributes ; and if, beside him, there are 
two others who are equally the object of praise and 
adoration, why do they not say so ? If the Son ex- 
isted before he was born of Mary, and was as truly 
God as was the Father, it was equally as important 
that he and the Holy Ghost should be known to the 
world, as that the Father should. Why, then, did 
not the Jews baptize in the name of the three ? and 
why did not the prophets speak to us about God's, 
dearly beloved and only begotten Son ? Why do 
they not say that he was then in existence, instead 
of speaking of him as a Son who was to be born in 
the future ? And, again, why was he not known 
and worshiped by the angels in heaven long before 



THE HOLY SPIKIT. 195 

his incarnation ? Why are we told that not until 
after his resurrection from the dead, did God com- 
mand the angels to bestow upon him these divine 
honors \ Did he exist in the bosom of the Father 
from eternity, unknown to any in the universe ; and 
would he forever have remained so if man had not 
fallen ? God the Father was known in heaven and 
earth and hell; has been worshiped by angels and 
by men ever since they wece brought into being, and 
will continue to be so forever and ever. The Son, 
on the other hand, it would seem, was unknown and 
unlionored until after he was born into this world, 
and will one day again, if the Bible is true, become 
" subject unto the Father," as he was when here 
upon earth, and as are we and all other beings in 
the universe of God. 

It is said that a knowledge of this divine Trinity 
was a mystery not to be revealed until the time of 
the incarnation ; that the Son of God was not to be 
known, and could not be known, until he was mani- 
fested by his works of redemption. But this does 
not meet the case. For if he existed from eternity, 
and is truly the everlasting God, as is claimed, he 
would have manifested himself whether man had 
fallen or not, and did, on that supposition, show 
forth his glory long before man was created; and 



196 THE TRINITY. 

the same is equally true of the third person in the 
Trinity. The heavens would have declared their 
glory, and the " sons of God " would have given 
them equal honor and praise with the Father. And 
yet, up to the time that Christ was born, not a word 
is said about any except one, and he is declared to 
be our Father. If the three existed in one Godhead, 
and were, up to that time, only known as one per- 
son, then the revelation of the last two depended 
upon the contingency of man's falling, and might 
never have been revealed if man had remained holy ; 
and if this be true, we might conclude that if, at any 
time in the future, the inhabitants of other worlds 
should become sinful, God, in his work for their 
redemption, would reveal some other person, or per- 
sons, not before known to any except himself; and 
so the number might continue to increase as the 
ages rolled away, and the necessities of the case 
might require. And even then it would be a mys- 
tery why the Deity should, before such revelation 
was made, be called by the name of one of these 
persons rather than another, and why the entire God- 
head should, for so many centuries, be called by the 
same name that is afterward given to only one 
person of the Godhead. It would be teaching that 
the Father was the whole of the Deity, and then 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 197 

afterward, asserting that he was only one person of 
it, and, therefore, misleading. 

But would God do this \ and is his character, 
and the number of parts or persons of which he is 
composed, thus variable and uncertain 1 While we 
may continue to learn more and more of his nature 
and attributes, is it also true that we shall never 
know how many different and distinct persons there 
may be united in that divine nature ? And if we do 
not know, why should we insist that there are abso- 
lutely but three ? If the God of Abraham, of Isaac, 
and of Jacob, was worshiped by the Jews as one, 
and we, because more enlightened, as is claimed, 
worship him as three in one, how do we know but 
when more fully enlightened, we shall worship him as 
twenty in one 3 If we can evade the force of the first 
commandment, which teaches that God is one, and say 
that it means three united in one, we can just as rea- 
sonably say that it means any other number whatever ; 
and, having said that three means one, we can just as 
well say that it means none, or that it does not mean 
anything, and that, consequently, there is no God at all. 

Bnl if we assert, with the Bible, that God is one, 
and that lie never was and never can be anything but 
One; that his Son is nol mentioned in the Old Testa- 
Blent, as then existing, because he was not yet born, 



198 THE TRINITY. 

and could not exist until he was born ; that, for the 
same reason, he was not known by the angels in heaven, 
and did not, it would seem, receive honors from them 
until after God had raised him from the dead, and had 
proclaimed him as the visible king in which an in- 
visible God should dwell, and through whom he should 
reign over them and men ; that God is, therefore, still 
our Father, and Christ our brother ; and that the Holy 
Ghost is God's spirit, working in us through him ; — if 
we assume this as true, we have taken a view of the 
subject which is as scriptural as it is reasonable, and 
which will alone explain some of the most important 
passages in the Word of God. Difficulties will be 
met and explained which cannot be overcome in any 
other way, and many passages of Scripture can be 
made to harmonize with each other which have always 
appeared contradictory, and which can never be recon- 
ciled on any other supposition. God will remain one, 
as the Bible teaches, and his spirit will be to him what 
our spirits are to us — God a spirit, and man a spirit in 
God's image ; God dwelling in a human body, and re- 
vealing himself through it, and man dwelling in a 
human body, and revealing himself through it ; what 
God does through this human body — the spirit of 
God — and what man does through his body — the spirit 
of man. As man is soul and body and spirit, so God, 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 199 

incarnate, is Father and Son and Holy Ghost ; and as 
the first are not three persons in man, so neither are 
the last three persons in God. The first are the three 
essentials of one man while in the body ; the second 
are the three essentials of one God in Christ. 

It is true that God is represented as having a spirit 
before he became incarnate, and of working by it the 
same as he did afterwards ; but it is also true that he is 
represented as dwelling in a human body before he be- 
came incarnate, and as working and revealing himself 
through it, the same as he did after the incarnation. 
He speaks of himself as performing his works through 
the different members of his body, the same as a man 
would speak, because he was speaking to men, and 
could not be understood by them in any other way. 
lint by the spirit of God the Jews did not understand 
a distinct person of the Godhead, any more than they 
understood by the spirit of a man a distinct person of 
the man. And even if they had, it would then be a 
greater mystery than ever, why the Son is not also 
mentioned. If God and liis spirit are distinctly named, 
and they had understood that by the spirit was meant 
flic third person in the Trinity, where was the second 
person in the Trinity, and why is he not mentioned? 
Why should they speak bo much about the spirit of 
God, and not a word about the Son of God? If the 



200 THE TRINITY. 

Son was then in existence, and God was doing all 
things by him, why do not the Old Testament Script- 
ures say so ? Why is it that they are not only silent 
upon this subject, but positively declare that God was 
working by his spirit, which the Trinitarian asserts is 
not the Son but an entirely different person ? The very 
fact that the spirit of God is spoken of so frequently 
in the Old Testament, while there is not a word said 
about the Son of God, as then existing, is another very 
conclusive proof that we have taken the correct view 
of the subject, and that the view of the Trinitarian is 
not correct. 

Again, it is thought that because God speaks of 
sending his spirit upon men, and because Christ prom- 
ises the Holy Ghost, and calls it the " spirit of truth 
which proceedeth from the Father," and, in another 
place, " the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom 
the Father will send in my name," — that because they 
use such language, it is evidence that the Holy Ghost 
is a person distinct from them both. But so does Paul 
speak of sending his spirit to the Corinthians, when he 
was in fact at Philippi. He declares that though "ab- 
sent in body," he is yet " present in spirit ;" and in the 
same way do other men speak of themselves, both in 
the Bible and out of it. So does Christ declare that 
his Father in heaven sent him into the world, as though 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 201 

his Father was far away from him, and yet he tells us 
that he is ever present with him and dwelleth in him. 
So we pray that God would come down and bless us y 
and that he would send upon us his holy spirit, when 
in fact God is always with us, and his spirit around 
and about us. 

And, beside, when he does send his spirit, what 
is it but himself? What does the spirit bring to us 
but God? "When we are filled with the spirit, what 
have we in our souls but the fullness of God ? When 
it descends upon us, is God still far away, or is that 
which we receive so much of his divine nature? 
When it fell upon the apostles, on the day of Pente- 
cost, was it not God that came among them? And 
when they went forth with joy unspeakable, per- 
forming miracles by the same spirit which dwelt in 
(heir Blaster, could not each one of them say with 
him, " The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the 
works." If the Father is God, and God is a spirit, 
can there be any other? Is not the Holy Ghost, 
nrhen poured out upon us, only so much of God in 
us as we are able to contain '. And if our souls had 
the capacity to receive a hundred-fold greater measure, 
would it not still be only a much larger portion of 
the same infinite nature of God? 

It was not one spirit that dwelt in Christ, and 



202 THE TRINITY. 

another in Paul, and still another in us; neither 
was it one person that worked in Christ, and another 
person that worked in his apostles; but one and the 
same spirit working in all. " There are diversities of 
gifts, but it is the same spirit. And there are differ- 
ences of administration, but the same Lord. And 
there are diversities of operations, but it is the same 
God which worketh all in all. ... To one is given, 
by the spirit, the word of wisdom ; to another the 
word of knowledge, by the same spirit ; to another, 
faith, by the same spirit ; to another, the gifts of heal- 
ing, by the same spirit ; to another, the working of 
miracles ; to another, prophecy ; to another, discerning 
of spirits. . . . But all these worketh that one and the 
self-same spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 
will. . . . For by one spirit are we all baptized into 
one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether 
we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink 
into one spirit." 

Would to God that the whole of this beautiful 
chapter was understood by the church, and that the 
force of the truth which it contains was felt in all 
our hearts. We should then no longer dispute about 
the number of spirits or persons there are in one 
Deity, but should worship God "in spirit and in 
truth," as we have been commanded. We should 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 203 

admit that as God is a spirit, the spirit is, therefore, 
God; and as he is declared to be one, he cannot be 
more than one. May that same spirit which rested 
-upon the apostles, and which raised our Lord Jesus 
from the dead, abide with us forever; may it guide 
us into all truth, as it did them, and bring us finally 
to the same home in heaven. 



CHAPTEE TIIL 



CONCLUSION. 

IN the foregoing pages our only aim has been to 
defend this great and important truth : " The 
Lord our God is one Lord." We have found this 
to be the uniform teaching of the Bible, and have 
endeavored to show that it means just what it states, 
and cannot possibly mean anything else. We have 
taken the position that, as God is declared to be 
one, he cannot be three ; that three are not one, and 
one is not three, and that the doctrine of the Trini- 
tarian is, therefore, contrary both to reason and to 
revelation. 

The view of the subject which we have taken, 
then, is not a new one, but it is as old as the Word 
of God itself. We have not only deduced it from 
the Bible, but have adopted the very language of 
the Bible — have given it in the very words in which 
God himself has expressed it. We have found it to 
be one of the first and most important truths he 



CONCLUSION. 205 

ever revealed to man, and one which he has always 
guarded with the utmost care, and which lie has com- 
manded his people to believe in every age. It was 
solemnly proclaimed by Moses, and was repeated in 
each subsequent age by all the other prophets, from 
Moses down to the time of Christ ; and was taught 
by him and his apostles still more clearly, if possible, 
than it had been by the prophets. 

Again, it is the doctrine which is set forth in what 
we call the "apostles' creed," and which is received 
as true in all the churches. It declares, as we have 
seen, that there is one God, and that he is the "Father 
Almighty, maker of heaven and earth "; that Jesus 
Christ is " his only begotten Son our Lord "; and that 
he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the 
Virgin Mary," etc. It does not teach that there are 
three persons in the Godhead, any more than does the 
Bible; neither does it state that the Son was begotten 
from eternity, but, on the contrary, it positively asserts 
thai which we have all along endeavored to prove, 
namely, that he was born eighteen hundred years ago, 
of Mary. It sets forth the very doctrine which we 
believe to be true, because we find the same is taught 
by the inspired writers, and in almost precisely the 
same words. 

But how is it with the doctrine of the Trinitarian? 



206 THE TRINITY. 

Is it as old as the law of Moses ? Did God teach it to 
Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, or any of the prophets ? 
Is the doctrine of the Trinity anywhere revealed in the 
Old Testament ? Is it even stated in the New Testa- 
ment, that there are three divine and eternal persons, 
and that these are one God ? And if it is not ; if God 
never taught it anywhere, where did it come from, 
and upon what authority does it rest? 

If history is true, the doctrine of the Trinity was 
never taught, as the creed of the church, until nearly 
three hundred years after the volume of Revelation 
was closed. The Son of God had finished his labors 
upon earth, and had gone to his home in heaven ; Paul 
had been beheaded at Rome ; Thomas and Peter had 
suffered martyrdom in different and distant parts of 
the world ; the other apostles were all dead ; and 
John, the last of all, having received and published 
the revelation made to him on the island of Patmos, 
had passed from earth, and had joined his Saviour 
and brethren upon the other shore, more than two 
centuries before the Council of Nice was convened. 
The days of miracles were over, prophecy had ceased, 
the church had lost the spiritual power which it once 
possessed, and the darkness of the dark ages was 
rapidly approaching, when several hundred bishops 
were called together by the emperor Constantine, and 



CONCLUSION. 207 

while in convention framed what is called the ISTicene 
creed. The doctrine which was proclaimed in that 
council, together with the one which was afterward 
convened at Constantinople, has been the doctrine of 
Trinitarians ever since. It requires us to believe that 
which the church, as a church, had never taught before, 
and which not only contradicts the apostles' creed, 
but would also seem to contradict, at least, both the 
Bible and common sense. For, while the apostles' 
creed teaches that there is one God the Father, and 
that he is maker of heaven and earth ; the Nicene 
creed teaches that beside him there are two others — 
God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. While the 
apostles' creed teaches that the Son of God was- 
born of Mary, and that he was begotten by the 
Holy Ghost, the Nicene creed declares that he was- 
begotten from eternity. It would follow from the 
teachings of the apostles' creed, as it does from the 
Bible, that the Holy Ghost was the Father of Christ ; 
while it is taught by the Xiccne, or Trinitarian creed, 
that he is not the Father, but another and entirely 
distinct person. The first teaches that God is one, 
and this we can readily believe, because it is in accord- 
ance with reason, and is also the language of the Bible. 
The other teaches that God is three, and this we 
cannot believe, because it is not in the Bible, and 
is, besides, a monstrous absurdity. 



208 THE TRINITY. 

Then which of the two should the church accept — 
the apostles' creed, or the Trinitarian % The one is the 
doctrine which was taught by men who were inspired 
of God, and who were commissioned by him to teach 
the truth ; the other was framed by men who were not 
inspired, and who were called together in a time of 
great excitement, and were influenced by all the preju- 
dices and superstitions of the age in which they lived. 
The terms used in the apostles' creed are to be found 
in the Word of God ; while in the Nicene creed, on 
the other hand, are introduced terms and phrases 
which are nowhere to be found in the Bible, and 
which God never warranted any man in using. That 
there are three persons in one Godhead, and that each 
one of these is supremely divine, is a doctrine with- 
out foundation in God's Word. It is neither expressed 
or implied; and, beside being unscriptural, is the 
plainest and most self-evident contradiction ever taught 
by the Christian church or any other. 

We ask, again, then, why should we try to believe 
it ? If we must dethrone our reason, and deny some 
of the plainest teachings of the Bible, in order to 
accept it, why not reject it at once and forever ? If 
God did not see proper to state such a doctrine in his 
Word, why should we teach it in our creeds ? If he 
has not said that it is true, what right have we to say 



conclusion. 209 

that it is ? And, further, did the teaching of this doc- 
trine ever result in any good ? did the church take a 
higher stand, and become more pure and holy after the 
Council of Xice, or did it become more and more cor- 
rupt % Having received this new light, did it arise and 
shine, or did it become more superstitious, and teach 
still worse and more abominable heresies ? Was there 
less dissension after these decisions than before, or did 
the darkness increase and become more universal ? And 
even since the days of the Reformation, has there been 
peace and harmony, or has the church continued to be 
divided upon this same question ? Has this doctrine 
given us clear and intelligible views of the Deity, or 
are we lost and bewildered in the very effort to com- 
prehend it ? 

It has certainly never led any one to repentance, or 
to seek after a higher and holier life with God. Neither 
has it given us clearer views of the great work of God 
in Christ for man's salvation, but has perplexed and 
embarrassed all who have ever given it any attention. 
The more they have tried to study the character of 
God, with this view of the subject in their minds, the 
greater the confusion they have experienced, and the 
darker and more mysterious the whole thing has ap- 
peared. We have never yet met anyone who claimed 

that he could understand the doctrine of the Trinity, 
14 



210 THE TRLNTTY. 

or who was not willing to admit that it appeared to 
be an absurdity. 

Many sermons have been preached, and many books 
published to prove that there is in one God a trinity of 
persons, and yet these very men have acknowledged that 
they could not understand it, and that if they were to 
assert the same thing of any other being it would not be 
true. They have endeavored to show that with God one 
is three, and three are one, while, if they had declared 
this to be true of any other being in the universe, the 
world would have pronounced them insane. And yet, 
if this is true of the Deity, it is equally true of every- 
thing else. If one may be three in any case, it may 
as certainly be in every case ; and if this is so, there is 
not a fact in history, or a principle in morals or a dem- 
onstration in Euclid, or anything else which we can 
rely upon as true. 

The beginning of all things is God. Here is the 
first and great truth on which we all must stand, and 
from which we must reason. And if, at the very place 
where we begin our reasoning, we assert such an ab- 
surdity, we must assert the same to be true of every- 
thing that follows from it. If it is true of God, it 
must be true of all that he has caused to be; and as he 
is the cause of all things, it would therefore be univer- 
sally true of all. If true of the fountain head, it must 



CONCLUSION. 211 

be of all the streams that flow from it ; and however 
sad and disastrous might be the consequences, we must 
be willing to admit them. 

If we had written these pages to prove that three 
different men were only one man, would any one have 
believed us ? If we had asserted that John and James 
and Andrew were the names of different and distinct 
persons, and that each one of them was by himself a 
man, and had then declared that they were all the 
same man, and that there was only one man in exist- 
ence — would any one have believed it? And if a 
hundred others had labored to prove the same thing, 
would they have been regarded as sane men ? Would 
it do for the world to act upon such a principle ? Would 
it not destroy reason, ruin commerce, and subvert the 
foundation of all truth and honesty? 

We are told that the Bible is higher and better 
authority than mathematics, and that we should believe 
it, if everything else is false. If it teaches, or seems to 
teach, that three are one, we should accept it, and here 
let the matter rest. Now, we respect any man who 
venerates the Word of God, and earnestly wish that all 
men loved it more. But we have too much respect 
and reverence for that sacred volume to admit thai it 
does teach any such monstrous doctrine. The Author 
of that venerable book is the Author of our immortal 



212 THE TELNITY. 

spirits ; and be gave it, not to contradict the laws of 
our being, and to overthrow those innate principles of 
truth which he himself implanted within us, but that 
it might guide us in the way of peace and safety. He 
did not make man for the Bible, but the Bible for 
man ; and he did not, therefore, give it to destroy his 
reason, but that it might direct and control it, and that 
it might impress upon him more clearly those laws and 
principles of truth which he had before written upon 
his mind and heart. The design of God, in giving us 
his Word was not to destroy the law which he had 
written upon ' our hearts, any more than it was the 
design of Christ to destroy the law and the prophets 
by his gospel. The object in both cases was not to 
destroy, but to fulfill. It was not to contradict, but 
to explain and enforce that which had already been 
given ; and that God would therefore teach us in his 
Word, that which he had before taught was false, 
and which we cannot but think is false, even though 
all men should declare that it was true; — that God 
should do this is as impossible as that he should him- 
self be false. As he cannot lie, so neither can he in 
one place teach that a certain thing is true, which he 
had plainly taught before was not true. 

We have, therefore, made the above examination, 
in order that we might vindicate the character of 



CONCLUSION. 213 

God by showing that he has not contradicted one 
of the first and most self-evident of all truths. In 
denying that there is in God a Trinity of persons, 
we have not denied a solitary passage in the Bible ; 
and in saying we believe that God is one, we have 
only .stated that which he has himself most clearly 
revealed. We believe that one is our Father, and 
that he was in Christ working for man's salvation, 
and that beside him there is no Saviour, because we 
have found it to be his own solemn testimony, made, 
not in a few, but in scores, and, we might almost 
say, in hundreds of places. There is certainly no 
other truth in the Bible which has been taught more 
clearly, or which has been repeated more frequently. 
We think it is stated in more places that God is our 
Father and our Redeemer, and that beside him there 
is no other, than is any other truth which has ever 
been revealed to man. We know there are others 
which are many times repeated; but certainly none, 
we think, which have been stated in so many differ- 
ent places, and by so many different writers. We 
know, too, that every important truth in the Bible 
has been revealed to us very clearly, and that God 
does not require us to believe what he has not 
revealed; and, for this very reason, we do not believe 
in the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is now under- 



214 THE TRINITY. 

stood and explained. We are under no obligation 
to believe it, because God has never taught it. We 
have no right to assume, even, that there are three 
persons, and that each one of these is Deity ; but we 
have a right, and it is our duty, to reject such a 
doctrine, because God has most solemnly declared that 
there is but one. He has never said that there are 
three, and until the mathematician can show that one 
is three, we should let the matter rest right where 
God has placed it. We should admit the revelation 
of God in his Son, because the Bible teaches it ; but 
we should not insist that the Deity in Christ was 
only one person in the Godhead, and that the Son, 
in whom he dwelt, was another person of the God- 
head, and then try to explain how each one of these 
can be supremely divine, and there yet be only one 
Supreme Being. We should not say that God the 
Father is one Deity, and that the man through 
whom he was revealed is another Deity, and then 
undertake to prove that the two are absolutely but 
one. That which is the Deity in Christ we should 
call God, and that which is the humanity we should 
call man. But we should not make the man God, 
and then, because this gives us a plurality, endeavor 
to reconcile it with the Bible doctrine of God's unity. 
Let us admit that which is written, but let us not 



CONCLUSION. 215 

undertake to teach that which is not written. By 
first assuming that which is unreasonable, and which 
is contrary to the Word of God, we are compelled 
to turn around and deny that it is contrary to his 
Word. And hence we assert, with a bold face, that 
though God declares he is one, he is, nevertheless, 
three, and that this is no ' contradiction whatever. 

For fifteen hundred long years the church has 
taught a doctrine which is • nowhere found in the 
Bible, and against which the reason of man has re- 
volted ever since. Her ablest men have all the time 
acknowledged that it was the greatest of mysteries, 
and that it even seemed to be untrue; and though 
they have tried to illustrate and explain it in every 
possible way, the result is that, to-day, it is involved 
in greater mystery, and is considered even more un- 
reasoiiable, than it was the day it was first proclaimed. 
Every effort that lias been made to throw new light 
upon it, either from reason or revelation, has only 
tended to increase the darkness in which it was < ■ r 1 - 
veloped, and to cause the inquiring mind to be less 
sati.-lidl and contented. And if the church should 
continue to teach it for fifteen more centuries, the rea- 
son of man would continue to assert that it was not 
true. There never was a man vet who could under- 
stand it: ;iik1 >u long as We have the power to think, 
and can distinguish between that which is self-evi- 



216 THE TRIMTY. 

dently true, and that 4 which is necessarily false ; there 
never will be a man who can accept the doctrine of a 
Trinity of persons, without admitting in his heart a 
Trinity of Gods. 

We cannot close without acknowledging our grati- 
tude to God for directing us into what we conceive to 
be the truth, on so grave and important a subject. 
And we also feel constrained to add, that we have here 
stated that which we believe with all our heart, and 
which we have felt to be true in the deepest and pro- 
foundest recesses of the soul. Since the day when 
God first revealed in us his Son, and called us by his 
grace to teach his truth, we have never felt that we 
were more conscientiously in the discharge of duty, 
and that what we were doing had met more fully with 
his divine approbation, than we have felt in the prose- 
cution of this work. And if we have uttered a sen- 
tence which is untrue, or have in a single instance 
misapplied, or put a wrong construction upon his 
Sacred Word, we trust that in his infinite mercy he 
will forgive. 

May that God who spake in times past unto the 
fathers by the prophets, and who has always guided 
his people, notwithstanding their sins and transgres- 
sions, continue with them forever ; and may we all be 
led to him who is our life, that when he shall appear, 
we may also appear with him in glory. 



PUBLISHED BY S. C. GRIGGS &> CO., CHICAGO. 



A Work of Great Interest to Clergymen, Lawyers, Teach- 
ers, and all Public Speakers. 



A Manual of Gesture, 

WITH OVER lOO FIGURES, 

Embracing a Complete System of Notation, together with the Prin- 
ciples of Interpretation, and Selections for Practice. 

BY ALBERT M. BACON, A.M., 

Professor of Elocution. 

260 pages. ------- Price, $1.75 

Prof. William Russell, the eminent Elocutionist of New 
England : " Your Manual is so thoroughly practical, and so care- 
fully condensed, that it must be an invaluable aid to every faithful 
student of true eloquence. No one who consults your compend 
for his personal guidance can form a false or inappropriate style of 
action, whether as regards popular or professional oratory, and the 
study which receives the union of true art and the grace of culti- 
vated nature." 

H. C. Davis, Prof, of Elocution, Union Christian College, Ind.: 
" Admirably adapted to students first beginning the study, as well 
as to the most advanced." 

Rev. Edward Lounsbery, President of Griswold College, 
Iowa : " His system is very simple and natural ; his interpretation 
exceedingly beautiful and effective." 

The Chicago Pulpit : " It seems expressly arranged for 
the help of those who study alone, and have undertaken self-instruc- 
tion in the art of persuasive delivery. We think that the work in 
the hands of our ministry, well studied, would have the effect of 
emphasizing the living words of the gospel all over the land, and 
making them two-edged with meaning." 

The United Presbyterian, Pittsburgh : "It is thoroughly 

practical, and its few general principles easily understood. Over 
ioo figures help to understand the rules for gesticulation. They will 
be of use to any speaker, and help to overcome bad habits, whilst to 
the young student they will be invaluable from the start." 

To be had of Booksellers, or sent by mail, postage paid, 
on receipt of $1.75 by the Publishers, 

S. C. GRIGGS & CO., 

Chicago. 



PUBLISHED BY S. C. GRIGGS &> CO., CHICAGO. 

" The man who can secure a wide reading for this vol- 
ume will do an amount of good second only to that done 
by him who wrote it." ' — Northwestern Christian Advocate. 



Getting On in the World; 

Or, HINTS ON SUCCESS IN LIFE. 
By WILLIAM MATHEWS, LL.D., 

Prof, of Rhetoric and English Literature, University of Chicago. 

"Beautifully printed, and handsomely bound" in cloth. - $3.35 

Per. Noah Porter, D.D., LL.D., Pres't of Yale College: 
"A book in which there is abundant matter of great interest." 

Hon. Henry W. Paine, LL.D., Boston, Mass. : " Have 
read it through, not only with great interest, but possibly, late as it 
is, with some profit. Had I fallen in with this book forty years 
ago, it would have saved me FROM MANY serious mistakes and 
THE LOSS OF MUCH TIME. * * You have written an admirable 
book. It cannot fail to do good. It ought to be in the hands of 
all young men, and especially of all young scholars." 

Mev . J. M. Gregory, LL.D., President of Illinois Indus- 
trial University : "It is one of the best books of the class that I 
have ever seen. It fills me with a sort of wonder by its wealth of 
incident and appropriate anecdote. * * The book is eminently 
wholesome; it is more — it is a tonic of the most vigorous sort, and 
I shall advise all of our young men to read it." 

"Edwin, P. WJupple, Esq., the distinguished critic, in the 
Boston Globe : * * " The present volume of Prof. Mathews indi- 
cates the nicety and the extent of his English studies, in the rich- 
ness and variety of his quotations. His subjects are eminently 
practical, and he treats them in a practical way; but then what 
wealth of illustration he brings in from English poets, dramatists, 
divines, lawyers, and jurists! The anecdotes alone of the book 
should make it popular." 

l!fi: f)r. Curry. Professor of English Literature, Richmond 
College, Va. (in the Religious Herald): " l'rof. Mathews has given 
us a book of rare interest. We have read it with delight and profit, 
The style is clear and charming. The subjects are eminently practi- 
cal. The pertinent illustrations show a wide and careful reading. 
This volume places the author among the best English essayists. 
The young man who reads this volume will have his pulse quick- 
enedj hi i moral \ i ion i larified, hi i faith and purpose strengthened." 

Sold by all Booksellers, or will be sent, post-paid, on 
receipt of price by the publishers. 



PUBLISHED BY S. C. GRIGGS &> CO., CHICAGO. 

"Indispensable to every public or private library worthy 
of the name." — The Christian Intelligencer, New York. 



Pre-Historic Races 



UNITED STATES. 

BY J. W. FOSTER, LL.D., 

Author of " The Physical Geography of the Mississippi Valley." 

415 pages, crown 8vo., with a large number of Illustra- 
tions, engraved expressly for the icorJc. - Price, $3.50 

COaSTTE^STTS. 
CHAPTER I. — The Antiquity of Man — Evidences in Europe. 
CHAPTER II. — The Antiquity of Man — Evidences in the United States. 
CHAPTER III. — The Mound-Builders — The Geographical Distribution of 

their Works. 
CHAPTER IV. — Shell Banks — Their Geographical Distribution. 
CHAPTER V. — Mounds and Enclosures. 

CHAPTER VI. — The Mound-Builders — Their Arts and Manufactures. 
CHAPTER VII. — Ancient Mining by the Mound-Builders. 
CHAPTER VIII. — Crania of the Mound-Builders. 

CHAPTER IX. — Manners and Customs as the Basis of Ethnic Relations. 
CHAPTER X. — Who were the Mound-Builders? 
CHAPTER XL — The Unity of the Human Race. 
CHAPTER XII. — Chronometric Measurements as Applied to the Antiquity 

of Man. Appendix ; Index. 



" A careful examination of the book has satisfied us that it is 
one of the most interesting and important contributions to Ameri- 
can archaeology that have yet appeared, and will take rank among 
the leading treatises upon the general subject by European archae- 
ologists. 

" We had thought of making some extracts from the volume, but 
it is so full of interest, from beginning to end, as to make selection 
perplexing ; and were it not for the restraints of copyright we should 
be tempted to run the whole work through the Popular Science 
Monthly, as it contains just the kind of information, in clear, com- 
pressed, and intelligible form, which is adapted to the mass of 
readers. * * The whole exposition is condensed into 400 pages, 
and the publishers have done their part, in the fine execution of the 
engravings, and the beautiful typography of the book." — The Popu- 
lar Science Monthly, New York. 

For sale by the Booksellers, or -will be sent, postage paid, 
on receipt of price by the Publishers, 

S. C. GRIGGS & CO., 

Chicago. 



PUBLISHED BY S. C. GRIGGS & CO., CHICAGO. 



Old-Time Pictures 

AND 

SHEAVES OF RHYME. 

By BENJ. F. TAYLOR. 

Red Line Edition, Small Quarto, Silk Cloth, Plain, - $1.73 
Ttie Same, Full Gilt JEdyes, ------- 2.00 

" The opening poem gives name to the book. It is thrilling in 
its interest and more elaborate than Mr. Taylor's usual scintilla- 
tions. * * It burns with the white heat of genius. * * 
There is a wide circle of readers who greatly admire Mr. Taylor's 
inimitable style, and will eagerly welcome this beautiful volume. 
One's blood tingles as one reads his ' Cavalry Charge,' 'Atlantic, 
' Decoration Day, and several other soul-stirring rhymes. The 
pathos of 'The Isle of the Long Ago,' and 'The Dead Grenadier,' 
is intense. Humor often blends with the pathetic, laughter and 
tears alternating. His imagination glows with diamonds and 
THE DICTION IS EXQUISITE." — Evening Journal, Chicago. 

"All worthy of the head and heart of their gifted author." — 
Albany Evening Journal. 



Dramatic Stories, 

FOR 

HOME AND SCHOOL ENTERTAINMENT. 

By LAVINIA HOWE PHELPS. 
12mo., 2(>2 pages. ------- Price, $1.50 

CONTAINS TWENTY-FIVE PLAYS. 

" They are easy of representation, the 'incidents are healthful, 
tlic language strong and pure, and the general design advantageous 
alike to actor and listener." — Boston Commonwealth, 

Sold by the Booksellers, or sent, postage paid, on receipt 
of price by the publishers, 

S. C. GRIGGS & CO., 

Oliicuiffo. 



prn 



G 












G 



i§ 



